It is with great sadness that I see the term "metaphysics" often abused by being used as a substitute for "mystical", "occult", "paranormal" when, in fact, it has -nothing- to do with any such things. Metaphysics - the term being derived from a work by Aristotle and meaning "after physics" because it came after his other work, Physics - is composed of three, and only three, subdivisions, namely, ontology (the study of being and existence), theology (the study of God), and universal science (the study of first principles/logic). These have absolutely NOTHING to do with the occult, paranormal, mysticism, or anything related to such things. Metaphysics is part of -philosophy-, which those things are not, as they do not constitute the rest of the philosophical subjects, namely, ethics, politics, aesthetics, et cetera.

Tyler, you remarked that metaphysics is "hooey" in another thread. I hopefully assume that you do not mean that this sort of metaphysics, the real metaphysics, is such, yes? If so, please demonstrate to me how the study of the first principles, the nature of being itself, and the nature of God, are "hooey"? We will debate from there.

Modern philosophy has two different camps: postpositivists and analytic philosophers. The analytic philosphers that include logical positivists completely disregard metaphysics altogether and have a hostility towards many metaphysical concepts that they consider meaningless. Thus, misinformed people may get the impression that metaphysics is all "hooey".

Metaphysics - the term being derived from a work by Aristotle and meaning "after physics" because it came after his other work, Physics

Ah, that's kind of missing something actually. Yes, the Greek literally translates to 'after physics', but there was no Greek word for 'above/outside of' (in fact, there's barely an english word for it - though I'm almost certain the Germans have one). It's generally accepted that Aristotle was not simply refering to the book which came after his physics book. Regardless, this is essentially unimportant to the debate.

is composed of three, and only three, subdivisions, namely, ontology (the study of being and existence), theology (the study of God), and universal science (the study of first principles/logic)

Um. Wohhhhhhh boy. First off, to say metaphysics is composed of only three subdivisions is to essentially call half of what philosophers have called "metaphysics" not metaphysics.

More importantly. Where in the hell do you get off saying logic is a division of metaphysics?? The formal study of logic has never, ever, by anyone, ever, been considered a part of metaphysics. Generally it's just left as it's own little beast 'philosophy of math'. Some crazies - and none of them remain - long ago might have argued that logic falls under "analytic philosophy". But, logic is defined as being by itself, independant, and certainly not subject-dependant. Metaphysics does not encompass it ever, and it never has.

And you're seriously misconceiving what ontology is. The term "ontology" is a predicative extension basically referencing "the nature of being" - it is not a subdivision of anything for it is not a study. One can talk of "the ontology of x" and x may indeed be a metaphysical thing, but "ontology" itself is not a study.

And many, many metaphysicians would argue that theology was not a necessary aspect of metaphysics. And I believe it was you (may be mistaken) that said in another thread that any talk about religion was theology. Well, no. Not quite, at least. Theology refers to questions into the nature of god and religious questions which follow. To take a weak atheistic or agnostic stance towards god is not to take a theological stance for it makes no claim on the nature of god and actually doesn't mention it. Rather, both the aforementioned positions are much more "epistemic" in nature.

Metaphysics is part of -philosophy-

James, I'm sure you don't mean to do it, but you manage to put more massive assumptions in any one post than anyone I've seen in a while. Metaphysics being a part of philosophy is also something that's been hugely debated for the last two hundred years. Those who don't think it is (myself included) have essentially been told "well, yeah, maybe - but ya ain't gonna stop metaphysicians from doing it".

as they do not constitute the rest of the philosophical subjects, namely, ethics, politics, aesthetics, et cetera.

Okay, again with the assumptions.
i) politics is not part of philosophy. "political philosophy" is part of political study. "philosophy of politics" might be considered philosophical if there was enough source material to really think about it. Essentially "political philosophy", despite having had many "philosophers" write about it, is not philosophy because it's goal is not philosophical in nature. I'm not going to debate this with you - if you don't believe me check NYU's placement of it's political philosophy class - guaranteed there are a bunch of them under the Politics Department and very few (probably one) under the Philosophy. "Political Philosophy" isn't philosophy the same way "War Philosophy" or "Medical Philosophy" aren't philosophy. Sorry for the rant - this is completely unrelated to your topic - but you should get your facts straight on the subject.

ii) ethics is metaphysics. Don't believe me? Ask Kant - the godfather of metaphysics and modern ethics (as well as a contributor - though horribly, horribly wrong - to the development of logic). Don't believe Kant? Ask Hegel. Don't believe him? Ask Nietzsche. Don't believe him.....? Dude, the list goes on. For centuries ethics has been considered akin with metaphysics, if you want to try and change the tradition knock yourself out, but I think the phil world tends to listen more to Kant than you or I.

Tyler, you remarked that metaphysics is "hooey" in another thread. I hopefully assume that you do not mean that this sort of metaphysics, the real metaphysics, is such, yes? If so, please demonstrate to me how the study of the first principles, the nature of being itself, and the nature of God, are "hooey"?

Well, where to begin? You want me to post my thesis (which isn't finished, so no is the answer!)?
In short; in terms of ontology I hope you realize my point earlier that it is (i) not a subject and (ii) not confined to metaphysics in any way. I think one can debate over ontologies because simply, there's no way one couldn't. That isn't to say all ontologies (for instance, I have nothing to say on the ontolgoy of unicorns really), but certainly the most pressing question on my mind for the last few months has been the ontology of the natural numbers in relation to the ontology of the real numbers.

As for the ontological arguements which you seem to still think have some sort of logical validity... I am telling you quite clearly that they do not. They are text-book faults in logic. In fact, Kant's arguement as well as Cantor's only came about because of axiomatic issues with their philosophy of logic(/math) that we've since proven completely wrong (which isn't to say Cantor wasn't super important - cause he was). I really am not going to argue the ontological arguements with you for very long - you can believe god all you want, but god's existence is not rationally necessary. Here is my one-time run through of the silliness of the ontological arguement.

First Part: That Existence is Superior to Non-Existence

1. All which does not exist is necessarily false.
2. Falsehood is inferior to truth and is its opposite.
3. If falsehood is the opposite of truth, then all which is true exists.
4. Owing from falsehood's inferiority, truth is superior, and therefore existence (as truth exists and falsehood does not) is superior to non-existence.

Second Part: The Classical Theory

1. God is the greatest possible being with all perfections
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Third Part: Existence is a Perfection by Default

1. Something can either exist or not exist.
2. Stemming from the first argument, that which does not exist is false.
3. Falsehood cannot be conceived as perfection.
4. Stemming from the first argument, that which exists is the opposite of that which does not exist, and thus existence is truth.
4. Truth can be conceived as a perfection and is the opposite of an imperfection.
5. Therefore, existence is a perfection.

Fourth Part: God is Not Impossible

1. There exists atleast one perfection (existence).
2. God is a being with all perfections.
3. Since perfection is not absurd, it can exist.
4. God, as a being with all perfections, has no internal inconsistancies as such.

Let's go point by point.

1. No. In fact, the sentance makes no sense. Truth or falseness are properties of a claim or assertion, not properties of a thing.
2-4. Well no. But I will bite the massive bullet and grant you the (silly) notion that there is some superiority of existence over non-existence. Even though there's absolutely no derivation system that allows this.

1-3.
Okay, think of it this way. I define "Gork" as "that which has all perfect attributes except a constantly runny nose".
Since existence is a perfection, therefore Gork exists - though forever damned to have a runny nose.

The problem with this is that the final step assumes the existence of god. The problem is the sentance "god is perfect". Well, you're assuming right there god exists. The sentance should read "if god exists, then he is perfect". Otherwise, it's not an arguement because the first bit just assumed he exists.

So the arguement in FOL is...
(using E instead of the existential, X for the extension of existence, P for the extension of perfect, and g for God)
Eg -> Pg
Py -> Xy
------------
Xg
That says "If there is some thing God, then God is perfect. If something is perfect, then it exists. Therefore God exists."
This arguement would be super, but at no point is God's existence proven. This arguement is invalid in logic and is an extremely easy one at that.

You want even more reasons the ontological arguement is silly? If I define the Christian God as perfect, etc. and I say that the arguement holds - then the Christian God exists. But what if I also say the Islamic view of God is perfection? Then he must exist too. And what if I say the Buddha is perfect? Then he must exist too. And if I say Kali the Destroyer is perfect? Then she must exist too.... It goes on as long as you want it to.

Look - the ontological arguement is incorrect. There's a reason no philosopher of any weight has tried to use it for a very long time. The only people who still study this are those who are studying theology. It's like Pascal's Wager - it's antique and formal logical has disproven it's validity long ago.

As for why I think Ethics is hooey - long and short of it is that I don't think there's any objective source of ethics. You are religious, so it's obvious we may disagree on this basic point (as God is often seen as the objective source of morals). I don't think you can derive ethics out of thing air, I think they can be derived only once already in a system.


Tyler, you remarked that metaphysics is "hooey" in another thread. I hopefully assume that you do not mean that this sort of metaphysics, the real metaphysics, is such, yes? If so, please demonstrate to me how the study of the first principles, the nature of being itself, and the nature of God, are "hooey"?

Well, where to begin? You want me to post my thesis (which isn't finished, so no is the answer!)?
In short; in terms of ontology I hope you realize my point earlier that it is (i) not a subject and (ii) not confined to metaphysics in any way. I think one can debate over ontologies because simply, there's no way one couldn't. That isn't to say all ontologies (for instance, I have nothing to say on the ontolgoy of unicorns really), but certainly the most pressing question on my mind for the last few months has been the ontology of the natural numbers in relation to the ontology of the real numbers.

As for the ontological arguements which you seem to still think have some sort of logical validity... I am telling you quite clearly that they do not. They are text-book faults in logic. In fact, Kant's arguement as well as Cantor's only came about because of axiomatic issues with their philosophy of logic(/math) that we've since proven completely wrong (which isn't to say Cantor wasn't super important - cause he was). I really am not going to argue the ontological arguements with you for very long - you can believe god all you want, but god's existence is not rationally necessary. Here is my one-time run through of the silliness of the ontological arguement.

Modern philosophy has two different camps: postpositivists and analytic philosophers. The analytic philosphers that include logical positivists completely disregard metaphysics altogether and have a hostility towards many metaphysical concepts that they consider meaningless. Thus, misinformed people may get the impression that metaphysics is all "hooey".

Wow, where to start?
Modern philosophy does not have two different camps.
Post-positivists are not a major camp by any means.
Analytic Philosophy is in general falling out of favour right now.
And are you saying that all analytic philosophers are misinformed? Or that just positivists are mis-informed?

Actually, I side not with the postivists. Later Wittgenstein is my cup of tea.

Modern philosophy does not have two different camps.
Post-positivists are not a major camp by any means.
Analytic Philosophy is in general falling out of favour right now.
And are you saying that all analytic philosophers are misinformed? Or that just positivists are mis-informed?

Actually, I side not with the postivists. Later Wittgenstein is my cup of tea.
There isn't a split between actual philosophers per se, but a certain type of mentality that leads in either directon. A good example would be colleges and if you look closely at the faculty/courses that are offered at a particular college, you can tell whether or not it's leaning to a more logical/precise/analytic mentality or a postpositivist/poststructualist/postmodern view. Neither is misinformed. It's something I've noticed recently, since I have to choose one of these colleges. Maybe I'm just being paranoid here, correct me if I'm wrong, because I wouldn't be happy in a positivist-type environment.

Modern philosophy has two different camps: postpositivists and analytic philosophers. The analytic philosphers that include logical positivists completely disregard metaphysics altogether and have a hostility towards many metaphysical concepts that they consider meaningless. Thus, misinformed people may get the impression that metaphysics is all "hooey".

I'm next to certain there are almost no positivists left around. Like me at 14, the positivist stage in philosophy was a short lived one. Certainly, it was one of the most important and influential ones, but it was short lived.

And yeah, most colleges do either lean towards analytic or continental philosophy (which is a better way of phrasing it). At McGill (which I'm lucky enough to attend) they have some of the best profs on this continent (not my rating, though I do generally love the profs) - and a fine split between whacko continental philosophy types (you can tell what I think of this!) and the more analytic/mathematical philosophers. Currently our Chair of Philosophy is a raving logic genius, so I'm having quite a wonderful time learning as much as I can from him!

And James - I believe the NYU conference is invite only, but I may well be wrong.
I'll give a check and send you the info.
Are you in school?

PavelB:

Modern philosophy has two different camps: postpositivists and analytic philosophers. The analytic philosphers that include logical positivists completely disregard metaphysics altogether and have a hostility towards many metaphysical concepts that they consider meaningless. Thus, misinformed people may get the impression that metaphysics is all "hooey".

This can be so, yes.

Tyler:

Ah, that's kind of missing something actually. Yes, the Greek literally translates to 'after physics', but there was no Greek word for 'above/outside of' (in fact, there's barely an english word for it - though I'm almost certain the Germans have one). It's generally accepted that Aristotle was not simply refering to the book which came after his physics book. Regardless, this is essentially unimportant to the debate.

Yes, virtually immaterial.

Um. Wohhhhhhh boy. First off, to say metaphysics is composed of only three subdivisions is to essentially call half of what philosophers have called "metaphysics" not metaphysics.

Such as?

More importantly. Where in the hell do you get off saying logic is a division of metaphysics?? The formal study of logic has never, ever, by anyone, ever, been considered a part of metaphysics. Generally it's just left as it's own little beast 'philosophy of math'. Some crazies - and none of them remain - long ago might have argued that logic falls under "analytic philosophy". But, logic is defined as being by itself, independant, and certainly not subject-dependant. Metaphysics does not encompass it ever, and it never has.

First principles include The Law of Non-Contradiction, which stands as one of the chief laws of logic.

And you're seriously misconceiving what ontology is. The term "ontology" is a predicative extension basically referencing "the nature of being" - it is not a subdivision of anything for it is not a study. One can talk of "the ontology of x" and x may indeed be a metaphysical thing, but "ontology" itself is not a study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Ontology

In fact, I have never heard the word used in the manner you describe.

And many, many metaphysicians would argue that theology was not a necessary aspect of metaphysics. And I believe it was you (may be mistaken) that said in another thread that any talk about religion was theology. Well, no. Not quite, at least. Theology refers to questions into the nature of god and religious questions which follow. To take a weak atheistic or agnostic stance towards god is not to take a theological stance for it makes no claim on the nature of god and actually doesn't mention it. Rather, both the aforementioned positions are much more "epistemic" in nature.

You were mistaken, but possibly by reading what I said wrong. I said that theology and religion are two different things and one could speak of theology without religion. But as to the meat of your critique, to hold a Weak Atheistic or Agnostic position is to assert that neither claims for or against God settle the issue, or to hold that no knowledge of the matter is possible, but both remain theological (and hence metaphysical) claims. Epistemology, obviously, is needed to decide which arguments are valid, but the study still remains under metaphysics.

James, I'm sure you don't mean to do it, but you manage to put more massive assumptions in any one post than anyone I've seen in a while. Metaphysics being a part of philosophy is also something that's been hugely debated for the last two hundred years. Those who don't think it is (myself included) have essentially been told "well, yeah, maybe - but ya ain't gonna stop metaphysicians from doing it".

Well then, the question must be asked: In what way can metaphysics not be considered part of philosophy? It deals with crucial questions, such as what is real, what is God, what are some principles which are axiomatic in nature and cannot be refuted, et cetera. If these do not belong to philosophy, then what do they belong to?

i) politics is not part of philosophy. "political philosophy" is part of political study. "philosophy of politics" might be considered philosophical if there was enough source material to really think about it. Essentially "political philosophy", despite having had many "philosophers" write about it, is not philosophy because it's goal is not philosophical in nature. I'm not going to debate this with you - if you don't believe me check NYU's placement of it's political philosophy class - guaranteed there are a bunch of them under the Politics Department and very few (probably one) under the Philosophy. "Political Philosophy" isn't philosophy the same way "War Philosophy" or "Medical Philosophy" aren't philosophy. Sorry for the rant - this is completely unrelated to your topic - but you should get your facts straight on the subject.

Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Rand, et cetera, to name a few, have written about the subject, and have included it in philosophy on grounds similar to why ethics is part of philosophy (although we are going to discuss this in a second), because it grounds itself in the notion of "what ought to be" and "what is best". You will note, for instance, that this common link with ethics is what spurred Socrates to basically create Western philosophy.

ii) ethics is metaphysics. Don't believe me? Ask Kant - the godfather of metaphysics and modern ethics (as well as a contributor - though horribly, horribly wrong - to the development of logic). Don't believe Kant? Ask Hegel. Don't believe him? Ask Nietzsche. Don't believe him.....? Dude, the list goes on. For centuries ethics has been considered akin with metaphysics, if you want to try and change the tradition knock yourself out, but I think the phil world tends to listen more to Kant than you or I.

Some ethics ground themselves in metaphysical claims, specifically theological (Divine Command Theory and some Natural Law), but ethics is, and of itself, not properly to be considered a subdivision of metaphysics as a whole. Kant's Categorical Imperative is, however, rooted in the Law of Non-Contradiction in part, so it can be considered a demi-metaphysical moral system. But here are some non-metaphysical ethical systems: Ethical Relativism, Ethical Egoism, Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, and Feminist Ethics (ewww). None of these are rooted in ontology, theology, or first principles.

Well, where to begin? You want me to post my thesis (which isn't finished, so no is the answer!)?

Damn you and your incomplete thesis! But yes, let's atleast discuss this in part.

Ah! I scrolled down and found the problem. You are confusing ontology with Anselm's (and mine, and Godel's, and several other's) with Ontological Argument. That's the flaw in this. See the definition of ontology

“ 1. No. In fact, the sentance makes no sense. Truth or falseness are properties of a claim or assertion, not properties of a thing.

Here's my rationale: How does one determine whether or not something is true? Why, in empirical claims, you see if it relates to physical reality, and if logic, whether or not it is contradictory or absurd. If something is true empirically, it is exists, if it is false it does not exist. It is false to say the Earth is square, because the Earth is round, and thus a square Earth does not exist. If something is true logically, it is not an absurdity, nor is there contradiction. A square-circle does not exist logically, because a square cannot be a circle and remain being a square (a contradiction in the notion of a square-circle) and thus is impossible (absurd), and thus a square circle cannot exist, or to put it in another way, does not exist. It is for this reason, taht anything which does not exist, is false.

Okay, think of it this way. I define "Gork" as "that which has all perfect attributes except a constantly runny nose".
Since existence is a perfection, therefore Gork exists - though forever damned to have a runny nose.

As noted after the fourth argument, I could go deeper into all this and prove other perfections, why they must be united, what claims they are, et cetera, to actually prove this God, but that it was unnecessary for the discusison at the time.

The problem with this is that the final step assumes the existence of god. The problem is the sentance "god is perfect". Well, you're assuming right there god exists. The sentance should read "if god exists, then he is perfect". Otherwise, it's not an arguement because the first bit just assumed he exists.

Here's a better way to put it: If God is perfect, he exists, as existence is a perfection. If God exists, he is perfect, as existence is a perfection we have all ready demonstrated to be so. Now, to prove that God exists is a wee bit different and we can go to other arguments for that. Shall we sometime? Not now, but later or in a different place, as the Prince James Ontological Argument for the Existence of God is not about metaphysics not being mystic garbage or the place of metaphysics in philosophy.

You want even more reasons the ontological arguement is silly? If I define the Christian God as perfect, etc. and I say that the arguement holds - then the Christian God exists. But what if I also say the Islamic view of God is perfection? Then he must exist too. And what if I say the Buddha is perfect? Then he must exist too. And if I say Kali the Destroyer is perfect? Then she must exist too.... It goes on as long as you want it to.

It requires a lot more than just the ontological theory, even mine which I offered, to prove that God exists, but once one proves the other perfections ascribed to God, demonstrates they must be united as a whole, et cetera, one can then use the Ontological Argument as a bolstering of one's claims and to demonstrate the argument that existence is a perfection, which is a necessary foundation. But it is mostly a superfluous argument, if one can come to prove that God has various other attributes, they are united in a whole, et cetera.


As for why I think Ethics is hooey - long and short of it is that I don't think there's any objective source of ethics. You are religious, so it's obvious we may disagree on this basic point (as God is often seen as the objective source of morals). I don't think you can derive ethics out of thing air, I think they can be derived only once already in a system.

You have pegged me improperly: I am not religious. I am a Non-theistic Pantheist. But that being said, I agree with you. Objective morality is seemingly impossible to prove. I take a view similar to a modified conception of Hume's "morality is rooted in sentiment", but replacing "sentiment" with "value".

Tyler:

And James - I believe the NYU conference is invite only, but I may well be wrong.
I'll give a check and send you the info.
Are you in school?

I am not at NYU, no.

Prince:
A square-circle does not exist logically, because a square cannot be a circle and remain being a square (a contradiction in the notion of a square-circle) and thus is impossible (absurd), and thus a square circle cannot exist, or to put it in another way, does not exist. It is for this reason, taht anything which does not exist, is false.
whilst you are of course in this context correct I just had to post an out of context contra.

What if the square is made up of circles?

Or put it this way "we have curved space that appears flat" a square in one perspective could and probably is a circle from another perspective....hmmmmm......now if I create a cube frame in 3 dimensional flat space is this a cube or a sphere in curved space......ha....

Sorry I just couldn't resist..... :D

Quantum Quack:

You dirty devil, you. :P

First principles include The Law of Non-Contradiction, which stands as one of the chief laws of logic.

Look, logic is a formal study. You also use discourse in first princples, does that mean language studies is part of metaphysics? No. The fact that you're choosing to follow one of the logical tools does not mean logic is a part of metaphysics in any way what so ever. It is a formal study completely non-subject-dependant. You've tried very hard to disagree with thousands of years of philosophical notions, I'm not going to correct you any more on these. If you think logic is a part of metaphysics, you got a long way to go and I ain't taking you there.

In fact, I have never heard the word used in the manner you describe.

Then you got a bunch more learning to do.
I'm taking a masters class next semester entitled "Realist Ontology in Cantor's SOL"
Ontology is not a study. Ontology of something is a study.

But as to the meat of your critique, to hold a Weak Atheistic or Agnostic position is to assert that neither claims for or against God settle the issue, or to hold that no knowledge of the matter is possible, but both remain theological (and hence metaphysical) claims. Epistemology, obviously, is needed to decide which arguments are valid, but the study still remains under metaphysics.

Noooooope. If I say "I don't believe it is possible to know the answer to x" the claim is an epistemic one. In fact, it's the negative answer to any of the very basic questions of epistemology.

Well then, the question must be asked: In what way can metaphysics not be considered part of philosophy? It deals with crucial questions, such as what is real, what is God, what are some principles which are axiomatic in nature and cannot be refuted, et cetera. If these do not belong to philosophy, then what do they belong to?

1) No, the axiomatic nature of logic is under logic. Logis is it's own study, always has been, always will be. You really need to learn more about this before you start arguing against it.
2) In my mind Philosophy is simply rational derivation. I believe very few things now fall under philosophy (with the seperation of psych, sociology, anthro, physics...). Metaphysics to me is just a word game. Have you read Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations?

Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Rand, et cetera, to name a few, have written about the subject, and have included it in philosophy on grounds similar to why ethics is part of philosophy (although we are going to discuss this in a second), because it grounds itself in the notion of "what ought to be" and "what is best". You will note, for instance, that this common link with ethics is what spurred Socrates to basically create Western philosophy.

First off, Thales created Western philosophy. In fact, I'd argue pre-socratic philosophy is much, much closer to what we now call philosophy than anything Socrates ever said.

And you seem to have completely missed the point. I said Plato and Aristotle wrote about it (though, much less so on the latter), but they also talked about physics and plato talked about sex - that doesn't make those subjects areas of philosophy. And Hobbes is usually called a "political philosopher". And Rand I hate.

Some ethics ground themselves in metaphysical claims, specifically theological (Divine Command Theory and some Natural Law), but ethics is, and of itself, not properly to be considered a subdivision of metaphysics as a whole.

No, I wouldn't say it is a subdivision. I say it's akin. They are one mode of analysation. Do you know much logic?

And what the hell is your obsession with law of non-contradiction? It's got to be the most boring and uninventive 'law' we've formulated!

Here's my rationale: How does one determine whether or not something is true? Why, in empirical claims, you see if it relates to physical reality, and if logic, whether or not it is contradictory or absurd. If something is true empirically, it is exists, if it is false it does not exist.

No. And I swear to god I'm not going over this ever again. A CLAIM (notice the big bold letters?) can be true or not!!! A CLAIM. A thing CANNOT be true or false!!! This is the definition of truth in logic!!

You're making a massive mistake of language, and I cannot stress enough how absolutely sure this is. The only things ever, ever that can be true or false are claims. That is a basic statement of Cantor, Frege, Godel, Russell, Whitehead...... It is the entire foundation of mathematics.

And I promise you, if you say again that something can be true or false, I will not respond.

I take a view similar to a modified conception of Hume's "morality is rooted in sentiment", but replacing "sentiment" with "value".

This is why I think the whole thing is silly, it's just playing with words. There is no tangable thing "value", it's a word with very loose boundaries. Same with "sentiment". And don't expect me to argue all this because I'm not typing out Wittgenstein, Quine and Kripke verbatim when it's all available to you.

I am not at NYU, no.

What level of education are you at, if I may so ask?


My whole hearted advise to you is to go buy a copy of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, Russell's Principia Mathematica, Frege's Completeness, Godel's Incompleteness, Quine's Set Theory and it's Functions and Kripke's On Wittgenstein. And anything by Davidson for that matter.

A much fuller understanding truth and falsehood will come from this.

Oh, and funny thing I just noticed...
The date you joined sciforums I was in NY at one of the best concerts of my life!

When I was 11, I wrote a one-page paper, just for my own interests. I titled it Metaphysics. It was just my thoughts about the nature of the universe.

Tyler:

Look, logic is a formal study. You also use discourse in first princples, does that mean language studies is part of metaphysics? No. The fact that you're choosing to follow one of the logical tools does not mean logic is a part of metaphysics in any way what so ever. It is a formal study completely non-subject-dependant. You've tried very hard to disagree with thousands of years of philosophical notions, I'm not going to correct you any more on these. If you think logic is a part of metaphysics, you got a long way to go and I ain't taking you there.

Logic can be detached from metaphysics and studied that way, but first principles, which form all the axioms are logic, are a part of metaphysics as it is traditionally held.

Then you got a bunch more learning to do.
I'm taking a masters class next semester entitled "Realist Ontology in Cantor's SOL"
Ontology is not a study. Ontology of something is a study.

Perhaps the term is being used differently from its traditionaly usage in stuff? Because, as noted in both the dictionary and on Wikipedia, ontology remains the study of existence.

Perhaps this class refers to the Ontological theories of Realism in Cantor's SOL?

Noooooope. If I say "I don't believe it is possible to know the answer to x" the claim is an epistemic one. In fact, it's the negative answer to any of the very basic questions of epistemology.

The claim, however, is -related- to theology. Any issueconcerning the nature of God, by default, is related to theology.

1) No, the axiomatic nature of logic is under logic. Logis is it's own study, always has been, always will be. You really need to learn more about this before you start arguing against it.

Aristotle would disagree with you. Again, look at the Wikipedia article. In fact, I shall contact a professor of philosophy which I know and ask him to verify that first principles in metaphysics are equatable to logic.

2) In my mind Philosophy is simply rational derivation. I believe very few things now fall under philosophy (with the seperation of psych, sociology, anthro, physics...). Metaphysics to me is just a word game. Have you read Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations?

I have never read that particular work from Wittgenstein, but I am quite aware that Wittgenstein held the view that philosophy was, essentially, language games. One day, after reading the bulk of his works, I must write a refutation of this notion.

First off, Thales created Western philosophy. In fact, I'd argue pre-socratic philosophy is much, much closer to what we now call philosophy than anything Socrates ever said.

Why would you state as such as regards the pro-Socratics?

And you seem to have completely missed the point. I said Plato and Aristotle wrote about it (though, much less so on the latter), but they also talked about physics and plato talked about sex - that doesn't make those subjects areas of philosophy. And Hobbes is usually called a "political philosopher". And Rand I hate.

Sex can be part of philosophy under Ethics or, possibly, Aesthetics, but I shall agree with you that physics no longer belongs under philosophy. We do, however, have to realize that science and philosophy only split around 500 years ago, though. Moreover, the first part of "Leviathan" is monsterously philosophical as apart from politics (it deals with Hobbes' ultra empiricism and materialism), the second part deals with Natural Law Theory to a great extent, and part three and four are heavily theological.

And what's so bad about Rand?

No, I wouldn't say it is a subdivision. I say it's akin. They are one mode of analysation. Do you know much logic?

Yes, I know much logic, in that I work with it routinely being a philosopher.

And what the hell is your obsession with law of non-contradiction? It's got to be the most boring and uninventive 'law' we've formulated!

It's axiomatic and irrefutable. It's one of our most brilliant discoveries.

No. And I swear to god I'm not going over this ever again. A CLAIM (notice the big bold letters?) can be true or not!!! A CLAIM. A thing CANNOT be true or false!!! This is the definition of truth in logic!!

If existence is the foundation for truth, then all which exists partakes of truth.

You're making a massive mistake of language, and I cannot stress enough how absolutely sure this is. The only things ever, ever that can be true or false are claims. That is a basic statement of Cantor, Frege, Godel, Russell, Whitehead...... It is the entire foundation of mathematics.

Again: How do we decide whether something is true or not? We find out whether it exists. If something then exists, is it not necessarily true? I admit this is a "fresh way" of looking at things, but I would assert it is true. If you disagree, let's philosophically grapple.

This is why I think the whole thing is silly, it's just playing with words. There is no tangable thing "value", it's a word with very loose boundaries. Same with "sentiment". And don't expect me to argue all this because I'm not typing out Wittgenstein, Quine and Kripke verbatim when it's all available to you.

You don't have to, no. But if you'd like to see my concept of value, check out the thread "Selfishness: The Only Possibility". It probably is one or two pages back here in General Philosophy.

What level of education are you at, if I may so ask?

I'm currently persuing a Ph.D. in philosophy, although I have a ways to go.

My whole hearted advise to you is to go buy a copy of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, Russell's Principia Mathematica, Frege's Completeness, Godel's Incompleteness, Quine's Set Theory and it's Functions and Kripke's On Wittgenstein. And anything by Davidson for that matter.

I intend to read all of those, actually. But thanks for giving me a nice specific reading list, as quite often when I buy books I forget which ones I need to buy.

Oh, and funny thing I just noticed...
The date you joined sciforums I was in NY at one of the best concerts of my life!

Which concert?

Onefinity:

When I was 11, I wrote a one-page paper, just for my own interests. I titled it Metaphysics. It was just my thoughts about the nature of the universe.

Still have it?

Logic can be detached from metaphysics and studied that way, but first principles, which form all the axioms are logic, are a part of metaphysics as it is traditionally held.

I'm not saying logic isn't used in metaphysics, but I'll answer this fully shortly...

Perhaps the term is being used differently from its traditionaly usage in stuff? Because, as noted in both the dictionary and on Wikipedia, ontology remains the study of existence.

Perhaps this class refers to the Ontological theories of Realism in Cantor's SOL?

Nope. Ontology is a predicate. Thus why you can say "The Ontology of God" or "The Ontology of Nature". Dictionary.com is a horrible reference for philosophical terms, and the wikipedia definition seems to dance around the notions but not really pinpoint them. Anything that goes "X of y" means X is a predicate (in this logical structure, in English - and other languages - there are of course deviations). You are of course right in stating ontological studies are massive portions of metaphysics (ontology of god, ontology of seperate existences...)

The claim, however, is -related- to theology. Any issueconcerning the nature of God, by default, is related to theology.

No, it's not.
I could say (and I won't defend this position now, I'm simply giving an example) "My position is that it is impossible to have any knowledge of any being which is not part of the animal kingdom, a virus, a bacteria or any other of the documented scientific phenomena". That is a epistemic position and it stll constitutes weak atheism. It is not theological in any respect.

Aristotle would disagree with you. Again, look at the Wikipedia article. In fact, I shall contact a professor of philosophy which I know and ask him to verify that first principles in metaphysics are equatable to logic.

ugggggh.
Logic is it's own study. It is not subject-dependant. You may use logic in other areas (science, psychology, sociology), but the study of logic is a study completely independant of any other study. It has been this way since roughly Kant, and more exactly, Frege. The creation of the predicate calculus completely made it it's own study, and no one (besides you) has questioned this since.

I have never read that particular work from Wittgenstein, but I am quite aware that Wittgenstein held the view that philosophy was, essentially, language games. One day, after reading the bulk of his works, I must write a refutation of this notion

That's a really silly attitude to take. I was much more of a positivist before I read later Wittgenstein and Quine and Kripke and Davidson. You have to consider the notion that you might just be wrong on some things.

Why would you state as such as regards the pro-Socratics?

Like I said, I don't think "what is good" and "what are forms" (in the really airy sense, though plato indeed touched on mathematic forms) and "what is good political structure" are the meat and bones of philosophy. Essentially, I believe philosophy is the study of language games, epistemology, formal logic and derivation systems, and truth and soundness (which do of course fall under logic, but the extensions of which deserve their own merit). The pre-socratics touched on all these things I mentioned, while mainting philosophical rigor and not engaging in the "silly philosophy" of whether or not there is a 'perfect tree'.

the first part of "Leviathan" is monsterously philosophical as apart from politics (it deals with Hobbes' ultra empiricism and materialism), the second part deals with Natural Law Theory to a great extent, and part three and four are heavily theological.

Yes, completely. And certainly sections of Leviathan are philosophical. Just like some philosophers did politics, some politicians did philosophy. Russell also wrote a book on advanced calculus, it doesn't mean it was a philosophy book though or that calc is part of philosophy.

And what's so bad about Rand?

I completely disagree with her politics, find her way of presenting it essentially superfluous and self-congragulatory, and for the life of me can't find a shred of literary value in the books to save the lack of philosophical rigor.

Yes, I know much logic, in that I work with it routinely being a philosopher.

No I mean formal logic. And you're a philosopher? Most profs I know wouldn't call themselves philosophers!
I mean do you know SL, PL, FOL, SOL, do you know the history of axiomatic development, the completeness and incompleteness, the limitation theorems, the cardinality theorems, the absolute theorems....? Is this stuff that you've studied in a formal manner?

It's axiomatic and irrefutable. It's one of our most brilliant discoveries.

I'd heavily disagree. In logic it's seen as a side note. It's kind of like the baby step. The Babylonians were clever for coming up with certain mathematic rules, but Euclid was a fucking genius for coming up with derivation systems. The non-contradiction rule is like babylonians to math, it's fairly apparent and it doesn't cause many problems (if any). Now, Godel and Cantor and Russell and Frege? That's some fucking brililant discoveries.

And man, I'm pretty sure you don't know the weight of the word "axiomatic" (and don't quote a dictionary on this one, because philosophically it means so much more). A rule is axiomatic if you make it axiomatic. Something is not axiomatic by nature. You can make a set (or type, or level, or... this is Russell's vicious cycle) based on axioms that you choose. Something is not naturally axiomatic. (Though about 120 years ago a few mathematicians put forth the notion that your obsession and a few others were naturally axiomatic. This was proven wrong as any reasoning for it became self-referential)

If existence is the foundation for truth, then all which exists partakes of truth.

No. You're stll not getting it. First of all you're wrong. Existence is not the foundation for all truth - I tried to make this point to you in another thread. We've proven that wrong already. Mathematics is not complete and you cannot derive it from existing things. There is no axiomatic system for truth, and this has been necessarily proven.

And quite simply, only a claim can be true. This is what the word true means in a logical sense. I swear to god I'm not typing this again and unless you're going to try and prove the completeness of math and go against 100 years of mathematical proof, I highly doubt you'll ever sway me or the philosophical community on this one.

Again: How do we decide whether something is true or not? We find out whether it exists. If something then exists, is it not necessarily true? I admit this is a "fresh way" of looking at things, but I would assert it is true. If you disagree, let's philosophically grapple.

Okay, it's a true fact (Cantor's theorem) that different sizes of infinite must hold. There has never been an observable secondary infinite (Aleph1). In fact, modern science and phil of math believes there is not any Aleph1 in existence. But Aleph1 is true. This is because truth has nothing to with existence. By definition, it does not matter. Soundness is a word that refers to existence. Truth is not. This is how the terms are defined.

I'm currently persuing a Ph.D. in philosophy, although I have a ways to go.

What school are you at?

I intend to read all of those, actually. But thanks for giving me a nice specific reading list, as quite often when I buy books I forget which ones I need to buy.

They're all very helpful, you just have to read them with the mindset that your current theories on life are most likely wrong. If you go in headstrong, you won't learn a goddamn thing.

And I don't mean to say you as in the singular - my mind has been swayed many times by many an author, and on most philosophical topics I generally have no opinion. In fact, almost nothing I've said has been my opinion, but mathematical truths that have been proven as necessarily true already; that you simply haven't learned.

Oh, and the concert was Moe. with Trey Anastasio, John Medeski and Sam Bush

unbelievable show

Onefinity:

Still have it?

Nah. I lost it somewhere over the years. Too bad, huh.

And you're a philosopher? Most profs I know wouldn't call themselves philosophers!
I mean do you know SL, PL, FOL, SOL, do you know the history of axiomatic development, the completeness and incompleteness, the limitation theorems, the cardinality theorems, the absolute theorems....? Is this stuff that you've studied in a formal manner?

Let me just interject here quickly.

Do you really think that philosophers must be indoctrinated in philosophy? In formal philosophy? Is the role of 'philosopher' really so stringent?

Now. If you'd said "philosophy professor" then I'd agree. You have to know things if you're expected to teach them. But, I don't feel that knowledge of all aspects of historical philosophy is necessary to be a philosopher yourself.

Yes. Knowledge of the philosophies and methods of others is useful. Some more. Some less. But I don't feel that they're required.

However, in this vein, I also don't think that calling oneself a 'philosopher' means that this person is fully versed in logic, Wittgenstein, Aristotle, whatnot. It merely means that one is prone to think about.... philosophy. (Circular. Yes. I'd be interested to see exactly what you think philosophy is.) More precisely, perhaps we should limit the title of philosopher to those who are published. But, what of the extent of their readership? Take Nietzsche, for instance. He was barely read in his own time. Was he a philosopher? Was he only a philosopher when he began to be widely read? (Ironic in that he described himself as a posthumous man.) Ridiculous, right? Was he only a philosopher when he wrote? When he thought? What about when he slept? What about when he slept with prostitutes? Obviously he wasn't very... informed in his opinions on women, but he still philosophized about them, didn't he? When he wrote his aphorisms on women was he a philosopher or a hack?

Anyway. I was saying that the label 'philosopher' doesn't mean 'professor' or vice versa. The terms shouldn't be confused.

All off-topic, yes.
Apologies.

Now. If you'd said "philosophy professor" then I'd agree. You have to know things if you're expected to teach them. But, I don't feel that knowledge of all aspects of historical philosophy is necessary to be a philosopher yourself.

Yeah, I've switched back and forth on this issue over the years. Essentially, what it comes down to for me is this: Russell was a philosopher, Wittgenstein was a philosopher, Aristotle was a philosopher, Leibniz was a philosopher. These people are all titans of thought.

A guitarist is anyone who plays guitar. A guitar virtuoso (or 'guitar god') is, well, a virtuoso. I call myself a guitarist because there is a seperate class of those who are so much better than me, and a proper name for them.

Philosopher, there is no proper name to distinguish between a punk kid like me and Russell. So, I'll give him his due credit and for now I'm a student of Philosophy. When I can truly add something to the philosophic community and scope of knowledge - then I am a philosopher. Most likely, that day will never come, and I will never consider myself a philosopher. Which all in all isn't a criticism against me - to say I'm not in a league with Russell and Aristotle is no shame!

Take Nietzsche, for instance. He was barely read in his own time. Was he a philosopher? Was he only a philosopher when he began to be widely read?

He had something new to say. And not only that, something new and very valid. Academics at the time did read him, just not the common man.

Anyway. I was saying that the label 'philosopher' doesn't mean 'professor' or vice versa. The terms shouldn't be confused.

Nope. Most profs aren't philosophers under the conditions that I put on the term for myself (and this is entirely a personal thing - I responded to him like that because I find it odd when people seem ready to ascribe these titles to themselves without years of intense study). And most profs I've talked to would be hesitant to call themselves 'philosophers'

Oh, and the part that starts "I mean do you know...." was more a response to another thing that checking validation for philosopher.

Obviously he wasn't very... informed in his opinions on women, but he still philosophized about them, didn't he? When he wrote his aphorisms on women was he a philosopher or a hack?

If I had to choose one? Hack. He had lots of valuable stuff to say, just not much of it was about women.

Tyler:

I'm not saying logic isn't used in metaphysics, but I'll answer this fully shortly...

Nor was I saying you said that. Sorry if I gave that impression.

Nope. Ontology is a predicate. Thus why you can say "The Ontology of God" or "The Ontology of Nature". Dictionary.com is a horrible reference for philosophical terms, and the wikipedia definition seems to dance around the notions but not really pinpoint them. Anything that goes "X of y" means X is a predicate (in this logical structure, in English - and other languages - there are of course deviations). You are of course right in stating ontological studies are massive portions of metaphysics (ontology of god, ontology of seperate existences...)

I shall contact a professor of philosophy to clear up the issue. In fact, I just e-mailed him right now. I'll probably get a reply sometime soon, likely tomorrow. Moreover, check http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11258a.htm for further backing for my assertion.

No, it's not.
I could say (and I won't defend this position now, I'm simply giving an example) "My position is that it is impossible to have any knowledge of any being which is not part of the animal kingdom, a virus, a bacteria or any other of the documented scientific phenomena". That is a epistemic position and it stll constitutes weak atheism. It is not theological in any respect.

If the claim was meant to extend to God, then it certainly an epistemic position regarding a theological concept, and therefore rightfully part of both.

ugggggh.
Logic is it's own study. It is not subject-dependant. You may use logic in other areas (science, psychology, sociology), but the study of logic is a study completely independant of any other study. It has been this way since roughly Kant, and more exactly, Frege. The creation of the predicate calculus completely made it it's own study, and no one (besides you) has questioned this since.

Again, we'll see whether or not someone of authority (although I shall not appeal solely to authority) concludes that the First Principles and the axioms of logic are one in the same. We'll continue that after I post the reply, I suppose.

That's a really silly attitude to take. I was much more of a positivist before I read later Wittgenstein and Quine and Kripke and Davidson. You have to consider the notion that you might just be wrong on some things.

Most definitely! He might convince me completely. Sorry for implying otherwise.

Like I said, I don't think "what is good" and "what are forms" (in the really airy sense, though plato indeed touched on mathematic forms) and "what is good political structure" are the meat and bones of philosophy. Essentially, I believe philosophy is the study of language games, epistemology, formal logic and derivation systems, and truth and soundness (which do of course fall under logic, but the extensions of which deserve their own merit). The pre-socratics touched on all these things I mentioned, while mainting philosophical rigor and not engaging in the "silly philosophy" of whether or not there is a 'perfect tree'.

Fair enough. But is it simply a dislike of the "airyness" of ethics, politics, aesthetics, et cetera, that you dislike, or do you have any other reasons for why they ought to not be included as philosophical inquiries?

Yes, completely. And certainly sections of Leviathan are philosophical. Just like some philosophers did politics, some politicians did philosophy. Russell also wrote a book on advanced calculus, it doesn't mean it was a philosophy book though or that calc is part of philosophy.

This is true, but without the philosophical foundations, specifically Hobbes' Natural Law Theory, Hobbes' politics would not have a foundation. In fact, he bases -every- claim of his politics on his theory of Natural Law.

I completely disagree with her politics, find her way of presenting it essentially superfluous and self-congragulatory, and for the life of me can't find a shred of literary value in the books to save the lack of philosophical rigor.

Fair enough, we all have our different tastes.

No I mean formal logic. And you're a philosopher? Most profs I know wouldn't call themselves philosophers!
I mean do you know SL, PL, FOL, SOL, do you know the history of axiomatic development, the completeness and incompleteness, the limitation theorems, the cardinality theorems, the absolute theorems....? Is this stuff that you've studied in a formal manner?

It is what I formally consider myself, yes. But no, I shall freely admit degrees of ignorance in the things you asked me. I have not tackled formal logic to that extent as of yet.

I'd heavily disagree. In logic it's seen as a side note. It's kind of like the baby step. The Babylonians were clever for coming up with certain mathematic rules, but Euclid was a fucking genius for coming up with derivation systems. The non-contradiction rule is like babylonians to math, it's fairly apparent and it doesn't cause many problems (if any). Now, Godel and Cantor and Russell and Frege? That's some fucking brililant discoveries.

If we did not have the wheel, would we have the the rocket? Although this statement trivializes the Law of Non-Contradiction. But imagine if one could say that 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 1 = 3 in the same manner and same way. Would not all math, as we know it, be impossible?

And man, I'm pretty sure you don't know the weight of the word "axiomatic" (and don't quote a dictionary on this one, because philosophically it means so much more). A rule is axiomatic if you make it axiomatic. Something is not axiomatic by nature. You can make a set (or type, or level, or... this is Russell's vicious cycle) based on axioms that you choose. Something is not naturally axiomatic. (Though about 120 years ago a few mathematicians put forth the notion that your obsession and a few others were naturally axiomatic. This was proven wrong as any reasoning for it became self-referential)

An axiom which one simply makes is only useful for that system. The axioms of the First Principles are rooted in facts which are irrefutable and thus can be said to be true axioms.

No. You're stll not getting it. First of all you're wrong. Existence is not the foundation for all truth - I tried to make this point to you in another thread. We've proven that wrong already. Mathematics is not complete and you cannot derive it from existing things. There is no axiomatic system for truth, and this has been necessarily proven.

We cannot derive mathematics from existing things? So you'll deny that the first people who added, likely did so by means of gathering stones together and then abstracting this process in one way or another? Although I shall admit that some mathematic "truths" are in violation of logic, and thus only work in the system "because it is said to work in that system", and thus has a systemic reality which does not correspond with reality truly.

And quite simply, only a claim can be true. This is what the word true means in a logical sense. I swear to god I'm not typing this again and unless you're going to try and prove the completeness of math and go against 100 years of mathematical proof, I highly doubt you'll ever sway me or the philosophical community on this one.

Let me ask you this: Even in a mathematic system, how do we discern truth? 1 + 1 = 2 because that is how it is defined in mathematics, no? Therefore it corresponds with the reality of mathematics, yes? Just as the statement "The man who is Prince James is currently typing what is now being typed" is real because it corresponds to reality, yes? 1 + 1 = 3 is wrong in mathematics because the answer does not exist in mathematics to 1 + 1, no?

Okay, it's a true fact (Cantor's theorem) that different sizes of infinite must hold. There has never been an observable secondary infinite (Aleph1). In fact, modern science and phil of math believes there is not any Aleph1 in existence. But Aleph1 is true. This is because truth has nothing to with existence. By definition, it does not matter. Soundness is a word that refers to existence. Truth is not. This is how the terms are defined.

I would argue that Cantor's theorem violates logic if it claims that infinity can be of different sizes. That which is infinite -cannot- have limited size, and since unlimited size can only be singular, "lesser" and "greater" infinities do not exist, even when they would otherwise lead to this.

What school are you at?

At the moment I am doing correspondence courses due to complications and restrictions making a traditional attendance infeasible for the time. It's affiliated with CUNY.

They're all very helpful, you just have to read them with the mindset that your current theories on life are most likely wrong. If you go in headstrong, you won't learn a goddamn thing.

I shall do so!

And I don't mean to say you as in the singular - my mind has been swayed many times by many an author, and on most philosophical topics I generally have no opinion. In fact, almost nothing I've said has been my opinion, but mathematical truths that have been proven as necessarily true already; that you simply haven't learned.

I would argue against their validity, obviously, but this is due to the fact that I have many deep-seated philosophical disputes with much of late 19th and 20th century philosophical and mathematic "truths". Although my qualifications are lacking at the moment, I hope one day propose, for instance, a mathematic system more in line with what logic would dictate to be so.

Invert Nexus:

However, in this vein, I also don't think that calling oneself a 'philosopher' means that this person is fully versed in logic, Wittgenstein, Aristotle, whatnot. It merely means that one is prone to think about.... philosophy. (Circular. Yes. I'd be interested to see exactly what you think philosophy is.) More precisely, perhaps we should limit the title of philosopher to those who are published. But, what of the extent of their readership? Take Nietzsche, for instance. He was barely read in his own time. Was he a philosopher? Was he only a philosopher when he began to be widely read? (Ironic in that he described himself as a posthumous man.) Ridiculous, right? Was he only a philosopher when he wrote? When he thought? What about when he slept? What about when he slept with prostitutes? Obviously he wasn't very... informed in his opinions on women, but he still philosophized about them, didn't he? When he wrote his aphorisms on women was he a philosopher or a hack?

How would you say that Nietzsche was a "not very informed" as regards women? The famed "You go to woman? Don't forget your whip" quote?

Tyler:

I just asked the philosophy professor in e-mail his opinion and he said, basically, the following:

Yes, ontology is the study of being/existence and part of metaphysics.

That Aristotle's First Principles are equatable to logic and at least some of the axioms of logic are properly part of metaphysics.

If you'd like the actual copy and pasted comments that he listed, I can give you them, too. I just thought a summary would be better.

If the claim was meant to extend to God, then it certainly an epistemic position regarding a theological concept, and therefore rightfully part of both.

I very fully disagree. My position (hypothetical) that I stated is simply an epistemic one. If I told you person x held that assertion as true, you could derive from it a weak atheistic relation to god. You could also derive a weak a-believing (or agnostic) belief towards Sasquatch. That doesn't mean the sentance has anything to do with pseudo-science and sasquatches. The problem you seem to be making is in giving theology and god any more weight than sasquatch. As far as my hypothetical arguement goes, it's not a theological point any more than it's a matter of sasquatches.

Again, we'll see whether or not someone of authority (although I shall not appeal solely to authority) concludes that the First Principles and the axioms of logic are one in the same. We'll continue that after I post the reply, I suppose.

You really don't need to ask any authority on this one. I am doing masters work in logic, I know enough about the extremely basic levels of it to tell you this one. Metaphysics does not study axioms - it may make use of them. Howeve the formal study of axiomatic system is absolutely massive, and is it's own section. I am in it right now, at school ,studying it, obsessively. It is it's own subject.

Fair enough. But is it simply a dislike of the "airyness" of ethics, politics, aesthetics, et cetera, that you dislike, or do you have any other reasons for why they ought to not be included as philosophical inquiries?

Um, best put - I don't think those subjects lend themselves to the same philosophical rigor that the other subjects I listed do. For example, I really dislike the term "political science". Politics cannot be reduced to a science - it is not exact, it is highly loose. Not only do I think this is a mistake, but a grave one. Attempting to analyse politics as a science only leads to problems, and I think it would be much better served to except that all human functions are not easily redicible to scientific process.

Interesting, in theory 'political science' should be long dead. The term came up in western society (not counting Plato, who never really used it anyway) and had it's modern meaning during the late 18th and through early 20th centuries. Around the exact time that philosophy was attempting to make everything a science. Since then, we've learned that's simply not possible. Hence philosophers since having dropped the notion that there is exact and complete rigor to all subjects. I can't for the life of me (and many I've talked to) figure out why political science is still a view.

This is true, but without the philosophical foundations, specifically Hobbes' Natural Law Theory, Hobbes' politics would not have a foundation. In fact, he bases -every- claim of his politics on his theory of Natural Law.

Hobbes was also an awful silly man.
If any thing, basing it on Natural Law makes his work less philosophy and more theology! Anyway, I am not saying Hobbes was not philosophical. He certainly praticed philosophical methodology. But his subject matter was not philosophical.

It is what I formally consider myself, yes. But no, I shall freely admit degrees of ignorance in the things you asked me. I have not tackled formal logic to that extent as of yet.

If you want to, I advise getting down to the basics and learning as much possible math as you can right now. Literally buy a calc book, buy an advanced linear algebra book and buy an advanced Euclidean/non-Euclidean geometry book. I wish someone had told me this years ago. Philosophy at it's highest level involves the entirety of math. And you will never, ever have a full grasp of philosophy or why things are unless you know math extremely well.

If we did not have the wheel, would we have the the rocket? Although this statement trivializes the Law of Non-Contradiction. But imagine if one could say that 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 1 = 3 in the same manner and same way. Would not all math, as we know it, be impossible?

Ah, no. But that's a more interesting question than I think you realize (not to insult).
Systems have been developed like that, and in fact it kind of hints towards the possibilities of non-Euclidean geometry. And yes you are right on your first point. But of the inventor of the wheel and the inventor of the rocket - I take the rocket.

An axiom which one simply makes is only useful for that system. The axioms of the First Principles are rooted in facts which are irrefutable and thus can be said to be true axioms.

Nope. Not true. And I don't blame you at all, very few people have any knowledge of this stuff (though why I can't figure, I find it the most fascinating end of study). There are no "true axioms". There are no axioms which we know to necessarily hold in all conditions.

The belief that that was possible (true axioms) was called "foundationalism" and has been dead for about 50 years. I'm reading a really fascinating book called "Foundations Without Foundationalism" by Stewart Shapiro right now actually about this very topic (with a shitload of SOL technical stuff in it to learn).

We cannot derive mathematics from existing things? So you'll deny that the first people who added, likely did so by means of gathering stones together and then abstracting this process in one way or another? Although I shall admit that some mathematic "truths" are in violation of logic, and thus only work in the system "because it is said to work in that system", and thus has a systemic reality which does not correspond with reality truly.

Sorry, we cannot derive all mathematics from existing things.
And no, that's actually called inference. Derivation and Inference are entirely different things with very tenuous links.

And no, no mathematical truths are in violation of logic.

Look, I understand your interest and that you probably a vast experience with certain ends of philosophy. But logic is a beast that needs tackling entirely on it's own and will take years of study before one can comment on it. (Like I said, I'm not commenting on it, I'm only telling you things that have been absolutely proven necessarily true). There are thousands upon thousands of pages of logic needed before you're going to have all this knowledge. But if you want it, it's all there! I do hope you're good at math though.

Let me ask you this: Even in a mathematic system, how do we discern truth? 1 + 1 = 2 because that is how it is defined in mathematics, no? Therefore it corresponds with the reality of mathematics, yes? Just as the statement "The man who is Prince James is currently typing what is now being typed" is real because it corresponds to reality, yes? 1 + 1 = 3 is wrong in mathematics because the answer does not exist in mathematics to 1 + 1, no?

Okay, you just need to read a lot more. Whether or not 1 and 1 equal 2 is true because of mathematical objects (whatever the hell those might be), mathematical definitions, logical structure or model-type theoretical heirarchy (ain't that a mouthfull) - is a massive question with years of debate and so far no answer. You don't know the answer. You don't know half hte problems that arise with each possible answer.

One of those silly notions in all the phil kids in my school is that they have something of massive value to say about these topics. Come on! We're all like 18-22 and there are seven more years worth of technical knowledge we could learn! It's like a first year carpenter apprentice thinking he can build a better house than the master!

Just bite the bullet, accept that there's a shitload more for you (and I) to learn before any of this stuff is within reach, and be happy. Areas outside of logic and language? Fine, metaphysics and ethics and a few other subjects do not have nearly the technical requirements. So, maybe you got some understanding of it all. But logic, you're not even near the tip of the iceberg yet.

I would argue that Cantor's theorem violates logic if it claims that infinity can be of different sizes. That which is infinite -cannot- have limited size, and since unlimited size can only be singular, "lesser" and "greater" infinities do not exist, even when they would otherwise lead to this.

If logical axioms hold, in fact if even your law of non-contradiction holds, then Cantor is right. And I can't imagine how you get off thinking that you've just disproven a mathematical truth of the last 110 years with a couple sentances of English.

I would argue against their validity, obviously, but this is due to the fact that I have many deep-seated philosophical disputes with much of late 19th and 20th century philosophical and mathematic "truths". Although my qualifications are lacking at the moment, I hope one day propose, for instance, a mathematic system more in line with what logic would dictate to be so.

That was tried.
For about two hundred years we've been trying.
There's been some success, but it's been proven necessarily true that math cannot be mapped directly on logic. There creates a vicious cyle (like Russell's) that results in higher and higher order logics being created.

Yes, ontology is the study of being/existence and part of metaphysics.

This doesn't really mean anything to me, the Chair of Philosophy here is a friend of mine and I've talked very frequently with him about the ontology of real numbers. Which is not metaphysics.

That Aristotle's First Principles are equatable to logic and at least some of the axioms of logic are properly part of metaphysics.

Aristotle's syllologisms are indeed "part of logic" in a sense. They are it's history. But they have absolutely nothing to do with modern logic. There are no "axioms of logic". That term doesn't reference anything!!!!

I'm curious; is your prof friend a metaphysician or a logician?

Oh, and just so you know the technical wording for "the law of non-contradiction" is called "the law of the excluded middle"

And just in case you're interested...
There's a wonderful article in Vol. 21, Is. 3 of the Jounral of the Philosophy of Logic and Math entitled Intuitionism, Meaning Theory and Cognition that will help you understand just how tenuous the law of the excluded middle is.

You have to understand that claiming these things as truths is no different than if you said "oh, by the way, you know how the universe is in a constantly expanding and then contracting state, well therefore..." Well, no. We don't know this stuff for certain. And we don't know what the implications of it are, or what it necessitates. All we know is that from one angle, it looks like it might be true. From many other angles, it's meaningless.

You have far too many assumptions in your head to do any rigorous philosophical discourse on this stuff. I know metaphysicians will say nice things like "the law of the excluded middle holds as a definite axiom!". But you have to keep in mind that metaphysicians, for the most part, really don't have grad-level understandings (or even below that) of logic or mathematics. Of course, some do. And that has led to many interesting angles being taken in math. But none of them are definitely right.

And there is not one logician in the entire world who would say there is no debate over whether or not the law of the excluded middle truly holds.

Tyler:

I very fully disagree. My position (hypothetical) that I stated is simply an epistemic one. If I told you person x held that assertion as true, you could derive from it a weak atheistic relation to god. You could also derive a weak a-believing (or agnostic) belief towards Sasquatch. That doesn't mean the sentance has anything to do with pseudo-science and sasquatches. The problem you seem to be making is in giving theology and god any more weight than sasquatch. As far as my hypothetical arguement goes, it's not a theological point any more than it's a matter of sasquatches.

It would seem a more proper conception would be to ascribe it as an epistemic claim first and foremost, and a rejection of God as a secondary matter. There is no specific mention of God, but the statement invalidates belief in God, and therefore it must necessarily be a theological claim on that level.

You really don't need to ask any authority on this one. I am doing masters work in logic, I know enough about the extremely basic levels of it to tell you this one. Metaphysics does not study axioms - it may make use of them. Howeve the formal study of axiomatic system is absolutely massive, and is it's own section. I am in it right now, at school ,studying it, obsessively. It is it's own subject.

Apparently, a professor disagrees with you. The dictionary would also:

A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: “It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services” (Albert Jay Nock). - The first definition at www.dictionary.com

The First Principles are precisely that, self-evident and unviersally recognized.

Um, best put - I don't think those subjects lend themselves to the same philosophical rigor that the other subjects I listed do. For example, I really dislike the term "political science". Politics cannot be reduced to a science - it is not exact, it is highly loose. Not only do I think this is a mistake, but a grave one. Attempting to analyse politics as a science only leads to problems, and I think it would be much better served to except that all human functions are not easily redicible to scientific process.

Is not philosophy the pursuit of wisdom? Is not there wisdom to be had in discerning the principles behind ethics, aesthetics, and politics? Specifically as these are monsterously applicable studies? And in what way is it highly loose to determine how people come to a conception of beauty? Do not people have reasons? What about what is good, both personally and politically?

Interesting, in theory 'political science' should be long dead. The term came up in western society (not counting Plato, who never really used it anyway) and had it's modern meaning during the late 18th and through early 20th centuries. Around the exact time that philosophy was attempting to make everything a science. Since then, we've learned that's simply not possible. Hence philosophers since having dropped the notion that there is exact and complete rigor to all subjects. I can't for the life of me (and many I've talked to) figure out why political science is still a view.

One can use a very philosophical approach to politics via looking to find the best way how one can acehive certain results. For instance, one could ask the question of: "What form of State is best for the assurance of security?" Then conclude what would be the best methods to assure security, if the notion of security is held, above all else, to be something to seek after.

Hobbes was also an awful silly man.
If any thing, basing it on Natural Law makes his work less philosophy and more theology! Anyway, I am not saying Hobbes was not philosophical. He certainly praticed philosophical methodology. But his subject matter was not philosophical.

Natural Law comes in both Athestic and Theistic forms, with Hobbes' being specifically Atheistic in nature. No mention of God is used directly in his theory, with such things reserved purely for the other sections.

If you want to, I advise getting down to the basics and learning as much possible math as you can right now. Literally buy a calc book, buy an advanced linear algebra book and buy an advanced Euclidean/non-Euclidean geometry book. I wish someone had told me this years ago. Philosophy at it's highest level involves the entirety of math. And you will never, ever have a full grasp of philosophy or why things are unless you know math extremely well.

Whilst I can see the utility of math study, I am ill convinced that advanced math and philosophy are truly intertwined "at the highest levels". I cannot imagine using calculus exstensively in ontological studies, nor in the investigation of aesthetics.

Ah, no. But that's a more interesting question than I think you realize (not to insult).
Systems have been developed like that, and in fact it kind of hints towards the possibilities of non-Euclidean geometry. And yes you are right on your first point. But of the inventor of the wheel and the inventor of the rocket - I take the rocket.

No insult taken. But I suppose one could make a system where 1 + 1 = 3, although it is possible to make any system once one sets the rules as such and such. It flies in the face of reality-based logic, and would have extremely limited applicability, but it is possible.

But as to Aristotle v. Godel, I'd much prefer going with Aristotle. I'd rather focus on what is real, not what is mathematically so, over all.

Nope. Not true. And I don't blame you at all, very few people have any knowledge of this stuff (though why I can't figure, I find it the most fascinating end of study). There are no "true axioms". There are no axioms which we know to necessarily hold in all conditions.

Surely there are! A thing cannot contradict itself and remain possible. A square cannot be a circle at the same time and in the same way. Nor can something cease to be itself and be itself.

The belief that that was possible (true axioms) was called "foundationalism" and has been dead for about 50 years. I'm reading a really fascinating book called "Foundations Without Foundationalism" by Stewart Shapiro right now actually about this very topic (with a shitload of SOL technical stuff in it to learn).

I'd strongly imagine this book is rubbish if it conflicts with the basic truths which form all reality.

Sorry, we cannot derive all mathematics from existing things.
And no, that's actually called inference. Derivation and Inference are entirely different things with very tenuous links.

So you will not say that addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, et cetera, work with normal reality precisely because they are rooted in reality?

And no, no mathematical truths are in violation of logic.

Negative numbers are violation of logic. One cannot have a value less than nothing (zero) in anything but a relative sense (owing money). Nor does 0^0 = 1 simply because mathematicians were sick of giving it as undefined.

Look, I understand your interest and that you probably a vast experience with certain ends of philosophy. But logic is a beast that needs tackling entirely on it's own and will take years of study before one can comment on it. (Like I said, I'm not commenting on it, I'm only telling you things that have been absolutely proven necessarily true). There are thousands upon thousands of pages of logic needed before you're going to have all this knowledge. But if you want it, it's all there! I do hope you're good at math though.

Oh, I do intend to tackle such formal things eventually, but I am not sure I shall come out of it with a refutation of my present assertions regarding certain things.

Okay, you just need to read a lot more. Whether or not 1 and 1 equal 2 is true because of mathematical objects (whatever the hell those might be), mathematical definitions, logical structure or model-type theoretical heirarchy (ain't that a mouthfull) - is a massive question with years of debate and so far no answer. You don't know the answer. You don't know half hte problems that arise with each possible answer.

Perhaps I do need to read some more, but I think you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that reality-correspondence is not the means where we discern truth, even if the realities are only systems we have made with certain postualtes held as truth. When something does not correspond to reality, it is said to not exist, and when it is a claim, to be wrong.

Just bite the bullet, accept that there's a shitload more for you (and I) to learn before any of this stuff is within reach, and be happy. Areas outside of logic and language? Fine, metaphysics and ethics and a few other subjects do not have nearly the technical requirements. So, maybe you got some understanding of it all. But logic, you're not even near the tip of the iceberg yet.

Not nearly the technical requirements, but far more important than mathematical games.

If logical axioms hold, in fact if even your law of non-contradiction holds, then Cantor is right. And I can't imagine how you get off thinking that you've just disproven a mathematical truth of the last 110 years with a couple sentances of English.

When dealing with infinity, one reaches some very interesting conclusions that nonetheless are true. For instance, see if you agree with this or not: 1 and 123234423234324325623324523432 are equally close to infinity.

That was tried.
For about two hundred years we've been trying.
There's been some success, but it's been proven necessarily true that math cannot be mapped directly on logic. There creates a vicious cyle (like Russell's) that results in higher and higher order logics being created.

I love to try the thought-of-as-impossible.

This doesn't really mean anything to me, the Chair of Philosophy here is a friend of mine and I've talked very frequently with him about the ontology of real numbers. Which is not metaphysics.

I do believe we are refering to different usages of the term "ontology" still. Perhaps you can quote from a book you have which defines ontology in the manner you are refering to?

Aristotle's syllologisms are indeed "part of logic" in a sense. They are it's history. But they have absolutely nothing to do with modern logic. There are no "axioms of logic". That term doesn't reference anything!!!!

Several laws of logic are -irrefutablely- so when refering to reality. See my two attacks on this notion earlier.

I'm curious; is your prof friend a metaphysician or a logician?

He is not -simply- a metaphysician, but I am unaware of his study as a logician. I could ask him, if you'd like?

Oh, and just so you know the technical wording for "the law of non-contradiction" is called "the law of the excluded middle"

Not quite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivalence_and_related_laws

Tyler:

There's a wonderful article in Vol. 21, Is. 3 of the Jounral of the Philosophy of Logic and Math entitled Intuitionism, Meaning Theory and Cognition that will help you understand just how tenuous the law of the excluded middle is.

Know where I might procure a copy for myself? I'd be interested in reading it.

You have to understand that claiming these things as truths is no different than if you said "oh, by the way, you know how the universe is in a constantly expanding and then contracting state, well therefore..." Well, no. We don't know this stuff for certain. And we don't know what the implications of it are, or what it necessitates. All we know is that from one angle, it looks like it might be true. From many other angles, it's meaningless.

So now you are saying truth is meaningless? And you do realize there is a difference betwixt the fundementally empirical observation of expansion/contraction of the unvierse and necessary laws of logic, yes?

You have far too many assumptions in your head to do any rigorous philosophical discourse on this stuff. I know metaphysicians will say nice things like "the law of the excluded middle holds as a definite axiom!". But you have to keep in mind that metaphysicians, for the most part, really don't have grad-level understandings (or even below that) of logic or mathematics. Of course, some do. And that has led to many interesting angles being taken in math. But none of them are definitely right.

Let me ask you this: Are you attempting to claim that truth itself is impossible?

And there is not one logician in the entire world who would say there is no debate over whether or not the law of the excluded middle truly holds.

And that is precisely why modern logic has immense problems.

It would seem a more proper conception would be to ascribe it as an epistemic claim first and foremost, and a rejection of God as a secondary matter. There is no specific mention of God, but the statement invalidates belief in God, and therefore it must necessarily be a theological claim on that level.

It is as much a claim about god as about sasquatches, or gnomes, or giant laser-shooting koala bears.

A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: “It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services” (Albert Jay Nock).

Have you never thought of the difference between how popular use of a word is different from technical?
For one, 'equal' does not mean exactly what you think it does. It has a much more technical definition.

The First Principles are precisely that, self-evident and unviersally recognized.

Not true. Within philosophy nearly 2/3rds of people disagree with that.

Is not philosophy the pursuit of wisdom? Is not there wisdom to be had in discerning the principles behind ethics, aesthetics, and politics?

Yes, but you don't consider sociology part of philosophy, or medicine part of philosophy. That's the point - it use to be that way, since then philosophy has lost tons of it's components. I believe these things should be the new components to fall.

One can use a very philosophical approach to politics via looking to find the best way how one can acehive certain results. For instance, one could ask the question of: "What form of State is best for the assurance of security?" Then conclude what would be the best methods to assure security, if the notion of security is held, above all else, to be something to seek after.

That doesn't contradict anything I said.

Whilst I can see the utility of math study, I am ill convinced that advanced math and philosophy are truly intertwined "at the highest levels". I cannot imagine using calculus exstensively in ontological studies, nor in the investigation of aesthetics.

I'll put it this way - I believe teh most fundamental question of philosophy is "how and what can we know". Without the answer to this, there is nothing you can really decide. And the single most easily displayed language to understand how/what we can know is mathematics. It is the most objective language. Also, if there's a problem with your theory it's easiest to show it's wrong in mathematics because you can figure most things out.

But as to Aristotle v. Godel, I'd much prefer going with Aristotle. I'd rather focus on what is real, not what is mathematically so, over all.

Godel's innovations created calculators, Turing machines, computers and computability. So think again when you queston how useful this stuff is. Without Godel you wouldn't have a computer.

Surely there are! A thing cannot contradict itself and remain possible. A square cannot be a circle at the same time and in the same way. Nor can something cease to be itself and be itself..

The law of the excluded middle is currently a massive topic of debate in philosophy.

I'd strongly imagine this book is rubbish if it conflicts with the basic truths which form all reality.

I cannot believe your arrogance.

So you will not say that addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, et cetera, work with normal reality precisely because they are rooted in reality?

No. I don't presume to know the answer to a 2400 year old queston no one's proven.

Negative numbers are violation of logic. One cannot have a value less than nothing (zero) in anything but a relative sense (owing money). Nor does 0^0 = 1 simply because mathematicians were sick of giving it as undefined.

Wrong. Simply because you have absolutely no conception of what logic is. Logic is simply the study of systems, models, and variables under predicate (or, in the case of HOLs, n-number variables) clauses. Negative numbers (though tricky) hold in logic. "value" is a very airy term and doesn't truly relate to anything in math. You don't know math. For the love of god, just accept something and try and learn instead of insisting you're right.

Oh, and 0^0=1 because it has that function. But I'm assuming you have no knowledge of latices, matrices and type-theory.

Oh, I do intend to tackle such formal things eventually, but I am not sure I shall come out of it with a refutation of my present assertions regarding certain things.

Then you will never be a philosopher. If you think at 17 or however old you are you've got it all figured out (or most of it)... I was arrogant at 17 (and am now), but never to that level.

Perhaps I do need to read some more, but I think you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that reality-correspondence is not the means where we discern truth, even if the realities are only systems we have made with certain postualtes held as truth.

If you truly think having read about 1/100th of the philosophy out there, having no knowledge of an entire massive branch of it and no experience in a formal setting you've really got it figured out, jesus kid, you're a massive genius.

Not nearly the technical requirements, but far more important than mathematical games.

math is the easiest way to solve epistimelogical questons.

When dealing with infinity, one reaches some very interesting conclusions that nonetheless are true. For instance, see if you agree with this or not: 1 and 123234423234324325623324523432 are equally close to infinity.

The answer is that the question is not a question.
The mathematic function that deals with "closeness" (or, actually, Enumerable Isomorphic Relation) is not a term that deals with Aleph0 (or what I'm assuming you mean by infinite =def {x;xe|N} ). Your question is basically like asking "what's closer to a banana, 5 or 6?"

You don't know math. How is it that you truly have the balls to say that you have figured out more than 2000 years of mathematical study and investigation at your age??

I love to try the thought-of-as-impossible.

Then get a doctorate in math and philosophy, and be my guest.

I do believe we are refering to different usages of the term "ontology" still. Perhaps you can quote from a book you have which defines ontology in the manner you are refering to?

"The ontological views of the anti-Realist Dummett risk falling to the same arguements as the platonists ontology of..."
- Dummett and the Platonists, Journal of Symbolic and Arguementative Logic

Several laws of logic are -irrefutablely- so when refering to reality. See my two attacks on this notion earlier.

You don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

He is not -simply- a metaphysician, but I am unaware of his study as a logician. I could ask him, if you'd like?

No that's alright. Most likely he's not a logician, there are exceptionally few as it's simply the most difficult level (the profs of it all have phds in math too, they're intense).

Not quite.

I am in the logic community. My mentor is one of the top in the continent. I read journals regularly, I've read a score of books on this one. I spent most of a termstudying this very law. It is called the law of the excluded middle when used in logic. The law of non-contradiction is actually something derived philosophically from the law of the excluded middle. both are under question by many, many philosophers.

Know where I might procure a copy for myself? I'd be interested in reading it.

Yeah, online for like $4

So now you are saying truth is meaningless? And you do realize there is a difference betwixt the fundementally empirical observation of expansion/contraction of the unvierse and necessary laws of logic, yes?

No. I'm saying I don't know. I'm a philosophy student, I'm young, I make no grand claims to have answered thousands of years of questioning.

Let me ask you this: Are you attempting to claim that truth itself is impossible?

I don't know. For now I'm learning. One day, when I'm learned, I'll have an answer possibly.

And that is precisely why modern logic has immense problems

You are possibly the most arrogant person I've spoken to in quite some time.
You're not a philosopher, and you lack any degree of desire to learn truth. You have only the desire to prove your current positions right. I seriously hope you lose this.

Actually this discussion opens up a line of thought that I think Onefinity has alluded to in the past as well.

What seems to normally happen in discussion or should I say debate on the board is that a poster will post an idea and then defend that idea to the hilt. Only reliquishing an idea or position when it is absolutey necessary to do so if only to save face.

This form of debate I feel is very counter productive and unecessarilly obstructionalistic. It means that posters are not receptive to the efforts of others to broaden the reference or offer alternative veiws that have any value to the original poster.
This form of adversarial debate achieves little development of ideas and results in even more entrenching of what may be a flawed position.

In other threads I have attempted to discuss how we tend to polarise our thoughts and then defend that polarisation. If anything can be learned from this thread is that if defending a proposition is needed then there is a problem with that proposition.

The ability to hold onto a belief lightly and allow effort over time to firm up that belief with out it ever becoming solid until that belief necessarilly becomes solid on it's own merit [thus truth becomes self evident], allows for a better belief system than one that is forced to be held due to issues of egocentricity etc.

Tyler I think is quite correct to take a less polarised view in regards to philosophy and I think he recognises the futility of strongly polarised discussion and also how counter productive this is to gaining greater insight into the philosophical questions that have haunted mankind for thousands of years.

I tend to think that when one can move away from this fixed position of postulation / defend that postulation, we can all benefit in a more constructive way.
======
Years ago I was in a classsroom studying electronic ignition systems which at the time were a new innovation. The course was challenging as we as students had to change our veiw of what we considered to be efficient ignition systems. The teacher [near retirement age] stood in front of the class and proceeded to expain it all in chalk [ yep ...no white boards either] and after 3 hours of talking and scrawling he anounced that that was it and the most important thing to remember about the last three hours is that and I quote "It is all bullshit any way".The teacher also taught fundamental approaches to philosophy [ in another school] and was demonstrating that if we place too much emphasis on knowledge and not the aquisition of knowledge we fall into the trap of intellectual bigotry.
He also mentioned that what he was paid to teach was already 3 years obsolete....
I was fortunate that his little lesson on philosophy so articulately expressed in an electronic ignitions systems class was delivered in such a humorous manner other wise I would have missed it all together.

"'tis all bullshit any way" just stands out as a way of taking the egocentricity of knowledge and attached beliefs and dumping them so that more knowledge and their inherant beliefs can be transformed more easilly. By reducing the value of knowlege and belief to a level that is more balanced and changable.
The teacher would never argue from a polarised position , but more from a global postion and gained much respect from the students for doing so. Because in doing so he gave the students opinion value even if mistaken. So students naturally liked the teacher because they knew that he would listen to them. He was empowering his students to think for themselves. A valuable lesson yes?


Any way just a few thoughts........

PJ:
Credo.

Tyler:

It is as much a claim about god as about sasquatches, or gnomes, or giant laser-shooting koala bears.

It is, but God is a specifically philosophically weighty issue, much more than contingent beings such as sasquatches, gnomes, or giant laser-shooting koala bears, although you've clearly not met my giant-laser-shooting koala bear pet Spanky.

Have you never thought of the difference between how popular use of a word is different from technical?
For one, 'equal' does not mean exactly what you think it does. It has a much more technical definition.

Then please, sir, tell me what equal means? Although I surely recognize common usages of words and technically usages differ, youa lso must realize that we can deal with axioms in philosophy very much akin to the "common term", because the first principles affirm such a manner of axiom.

Not true. Within philosophy nearly 2/3rds of people disagree with that.

Showing once again why modern philosophy is lacking, but that is an argument for another day. But here's an argument I found quite nice on the Wikipedia article on first principles:

"For the same (characteristic) simultaneously to belong and not belong to the same (object) in the same (way) is impossible."
This principle is the first expression of consistency in western thought. Any defining and reasoning in any language on any topic assumes it a priori. It cannot be doubted, as all doubting is based on inconsistency, which assumes consistency a priori.

Yes, but you don't consider sociology part of philosophy, or medicine part of philosophy. That's the point - it use to be that way, since then philosophy has lost tons of it's components. I believe these things should be the new components to fall.

For what reason ought they? Perhaps we'd be better have philosophers reintergrate many of the lost aspects of philosophy, such as the natural sciences. Hawking would love to see a renewal of scientific interest amongst philosophers, for instance, and I am inclined to agree with the reasons for his incentive.

That doesn't contradict anything I said.

It points to the validity of studying politics under philosophy.

I'll put it this way - I believe teh most fundamental question of philosophy is "how and what can we know". Without the answer to this, there is nothing you can really decide. And the single most easily displayed language to understand how/what we can know is mathematics. It is the most objective language. Also, if there's a problem with your theory it's easiest to show it's wrong in mathematics because you can figure most things out.

Is mathematics the most objective language? If one can make axioms out of thin air, instead of conforming them to reality, in what way is it an objective language? But I would agree that "how and what we can know" is an exceedingly important part of philosophy and a rightful aspect of philosophical inquiry.

Godel's innovations created calculators, Turing machines, computers and computability. So think again when you queston how useful this stuff is. Without Godel you wouldn't have a computer.

Whilst the computer is supremely great in manyways, I'd much rather have the foundations for thought and be typing now on a type writer, or speaking to someone in the flesh. But this is a preference, of course.

The law of the excluded middle is currently a massive topic of debate in philosophy.

Rather sillily, if they are attempting to claim that a circle could be a square at the same time and in the same manner...

I cannot believe your arrogance.

;) It's well-cultivated over the ages. But I may check such a thing out and judge for myself.

No. I don't presume to know the answer to a 2400 year old queston no one's proven.

It's funny, because I can use simple real life objects to do this quite well.

Wrong. Simply because you have absolutely no conception of what logic is. Logic is simply the study of systems, models, and variables under predicate (or, in the case of HOLs, n-number variables) clauses. Negative numbers (though tricky) hold in logic. "value" is a very airy term and doesn't truly relate to anything in math. You don't know math. For the love of god, just accept something and try and learn instead of insisting you're right.

I was speaking from a reality based logic, or even really a contradiction in the mathematical terms. Zero is generally held to mean "nothing", yet then one speaks of "less than nothing"?

Make anything a premise and you get a logical system if you follow said premises. Does this give us anything but nonsense mind-tricks?

Oh, and 0^0=1 because it has that function. But I'm assuming you have no knowledge of latices, matrices and type-theory.

No, I do not. But I am also well aware that since exponents rely on multiplication that it is an absurdity to override the rule that 0 * anything equals anything but 0.

Then you will never be a philosopher. If you think at 17 or however old you are you've got it all figured out (or most of it)... I was arrogant at 17 (and am now), but never to that level.

Although I am not 17, I do not think I have "everything figured out", only certain things.

If you truly think having read about 1/100th of the philosophy out there, having no knowledge of an entire massive branch of it and no experience in a formal setting you've really got it figured out, jesus kid, you're a massive genius.

I've read a significantly higher portion of philosophy than "1/100th", but that aside, I'd hardly consider the logic you speak of as proper to philosophy, specifically with its premise-creation. Try corresponding the systems to reality and we may speak.

math is the easiest way to solve epistimelogical questons.

Provide an example?

The answer is that the question is not a question.
The mathematic function that deals with "closeness" (or, actually, Enumerable Isomorphic Relation) is not a term that deals with Aleph0 (or what I'm assuming you mean by infinite =def {x;xe|N} ). Your question is basically like asking "what's closer to a banana, 5 or 6?"

So basically you discard the question because your system says it is worthless?

You don't know math. How is it that you truly have the balls to say that you have figured out more than 2000 years of mathematical study and investigation at your age??

When did I tell you my age?

"The ontological views of the anti-Realist Dummett risk falling to the same arguements as the platonists ontology of..."
- Dummett and the Platonists, Journal of Symbolic and Arguementative Logic

You do realize that phrase "ontological views" is saying "the views on existence/being of the anti-Realist..." yes?

You don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

Okay, I am going to straight out ask you to refute the following:

"For the same (characteristic) simultaneously to belong and not belong to the same (object) in the same (way) is impossible."

No that's alright. Most likely he's not a logician, there are exceptionally few as it's simply the most difficult level (the profs of it all have phds in math too, they're intense).

I am not aware of him having a Ph.D. in mathematics, so yes, you're quite possibly right.

I am in the logic community. My mentor is one of the top in the continent. I read journals regularly, I've read a score of books on this one. I spent most of a termstudying this very law. It is called the law of the excluded middle when used in logic. The law of non-contradiction is actually something derived philosophically from the law of the excluded middle. both are under question by many, many philosophers.

Present to me a resource which claims that the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of the Excluded Middle are precisely the same. I can present to you one, off hand, that states different, although it is not scholarly but it is peer reviewed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivalence_and_related_laws

Yeah, online for like $4

Got a link?

No. I'm saying I don't know. I'm a philosophy student, I'm young, I make no grand claims to have answered thousands of years of questioning.

Let me ask you this: Did you type the above statement to me?

You are possibly the most arrogant person I've spoken to in quite some time.
You're not a philosopher, and you lack any degree of desire to learn truth. You have only the desire to prove your current positions right. I seriously hope you lose this.

Oh, no, I have switched positions due to realizing I was wrong many times over.

Quantum Quack:

There are times, as I have noted in that thread about polarization, that it is simply counter productive to be unbiased for the sake of being unbiased.

Poets write poetry, and then others analyze how it was done, to teach more others about their analysis.. No one can teach a person to BE a Poet.

It is the same with MetaPhysics.. Some live and breath a different reality, beyond, above the known physical.. and along come others to analyze, and teach more others about their analysis.. but no one can teach a person how to BE a MetaPhysician.

To teach yourself, you simply let go of everything that is KNOWN, and what you then APPREHEND DIRECTLY will allow you to return and have something to say about MetaPhysics that will have the ring of Authenticity to those who can appreciate such things.

Remember, we just don't know everything. Not knowing is a good place to start, and being well prepared NOT TO KNOW by an excellent education is even better.

Words words words... forgetting remembering.... Let go of everything that is not the answer, and there the answer is.

<a href="http://www.ayla-z.com">Ayla Z</a>

Ayla Z:

It is the same with MetaPhysics.. Some live and breath a different reality, beyond, above the known physical.. and along come others to analyze, and teach more others about their analysis.. but no one can teach a person how to BE a MetaPhysician.

What does this have to do with metaphysics?

What is it that has you confused about my post??

Ayla Z:

Metaphysics is the study of ontology, theology, and first principles.

"Some live and breath a different reality, beyond, above the known physical".

What does that have to do with the aforementioned definition of metaphysics?

Welcome to Sciforums, by the way.

Thank You, it is very interesting here..

I wanted to point out that there are some who see these issues,
origins, first principles, ultimate ground, the universe and all the fish....
as a single entity, a single issue, a single question, a single answer...

If one wishes to know the answer, it can be found.
If one wishes to struggle grandly with questions forever, it can be done.

That's all I wanted to add. I realize it may still seem like nonsense to you
and that's OK. Maybe it is.

ayla_z:

I wanted to point out that there are some who see these issues,
origins, first principles, ultimate ground, the universe and all the fish....
as a single entity, a single issue, a single question, a single answer...

If one wishes to know the answer, it can be found.
If one wishes to struggle grandly with questions forever, it can be done.

That's all I wanted to add. I realize it may still seem like nonsense to you
and that's OK. Maybe it is.

How is this "above the physical", though? Maybe you can simply elaborate further on what point you were trying to get through?