Philosophy (Part 2)

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger

No No No. The father chose to have sex. Who knows if he used protection or not. Probably he didn't. How about the women in society that choose to have abortions because they don't want to support a child. How about the men who use protection. They should have to pay for other people to have children? That's crap. I believe that society should support children but not if the parents can do it.

What a ****e post. Your argument has been degrading for the last 3 pages (it was holding up pretty well until then).

Is this the closest I will get to a consession?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger

He took a risk. If I drive drunk I take a risk of getting in an accident. I may not have intended to get into an accident, but I'm still responsible.

Driving drunk is analogous to going in without a condom. Driving sober is analogous to going in with one.

On that note, it's 5:00 and you're getting more boring by the minute...

I don't see a point here. You also take a risk when you drive sober.

Good night.

[KrazyHorse]

? A concession?

All I've seen is the same tired arguments that I encountered the last time I brought this up.

They're based on the assumptions that:

a) abortion is wrong, even if it is legal
b) women aren't responsible for having sex
c) having sex signals your clear intent to father a child. just like walking on the sidewalk signals your clear intent to be hit by a bus

[Jon Miller]

are yuo on the east coast Frogger?

I always thought you were central...

Jon Miller

[KrazyHorse]

Nope. Too late to search for a map. It's a good idea to keep Canada's 2 biggest cities in the same time zone.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger
? A concession?

All I've seen is the same tired arguments that I encountered the last time I brought this up.

They're based on the assumptions that:

a) abortion is wrong, even if it is legal
b) women aren't responsible for having sex
c) having sex signals your clear intent to father a child. just like walking on the sidewalk signals your clear intent to be hit by a bus

I haven't made any of these assumptions. In fact I just got through telling you that having sex with a condom is taking a risk, not intending to have a child. People are responsible for the risks they take, especially if they get compensation for it.

[KrazyHorse]

See my analogy from earlier, Duncan. It still holds...

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger
See my analogy from earlier, Duncan. It still holds...

In that analogy did the person responsible for the accident take a risk for compensation?

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Ramo
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.

Well, to judge by the above quote, at least you recognize that there exists a good philosophy.

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 may be ambiguous, but still correct statement. And human language is unfortunately how we deal with cognitive process. Not everything can be mathematized.

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

1. Oops, sorry. He is indeed spelled "Hegel"
2. Actually it is not called "second law" by Hegel himself.

Even more than Aristotle and the Stoics, Hegel believed that the study of logic is an investigation into the fundamental structure of reality itself. According to Hegel, all logic (and, hence, all of reality) is dialectical in character. As Kant had noted in the Antinomies, serious thought about one general description of the world commonly leads us into a contemplation of its opposite. But Hegel did not suppose this to be the end of the matter; he made the further supposition that the two concepts so held in opposition can always be united by a shift to some higher level of thought. Thus, the human mind invariably moves from thesis to antithesis to synthesis, employing each synthesis as the thesis for a new opposition to be transcended by yet a higher level, continuing in a perpetual waltz of intellectual achievement.

[Peter Triggs]

Asher, tinyp3nis

What was covered in these philosophy of logic courses that you found so boring?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger

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.

How did you debunk it, praytell?

It is antiscientific if you don't let yourself accept certain things. But so is not accepting everything up until the scientific method. This is why philosophy is a trap. Until you just accept certain things (which things there is no proof of) you can't go anywhere. And the scientific method is one of those things...

Letting yourself accept that view of the mind leads to silly sceptical problems - it leads to absurdities. There's a good case to be made for the claim that the Cartesian view of mind arises from misunderstandings of the relevant parts of language.

There is a big move from saying "I can be wrong about the way things are even though they seem to me to be a certain way" to hypostasising internal senses or strange mental entities. This is 17th century stuff.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Peter Triggs
Asher, tinyp3nis

What was covered in these philosophy of logic courses that you found so boring?

First order logic...
Proofs (as they call them in philosophy anyway ), translation into FOL, fundamental concepts (logical validity, FO validity, all of that crap), etc.

[KrazyHorse]

Letting yourself accept that view of the mind leads to silly sceptical problems - it leads to absurdities

Like? Hard arguments, now...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Agathon:


Nope. Reality exists, that is all we need to know.

If you feel the need to question it, feel free to do so. Just don't pretend it has any meaning or intrinsic worth.

Pathetic. You are just a dogmatist so there is no point in arguing with you. If assertion was supposed to convince me then it hasn't worked.

[KrazyHorse]

Don't just tell me what happened, what philosophers think they've proven to themselves. Put your cred on the line and tell me how you did it.