StrictlyLogical

The point of the post is to dissect just what went wrong with a specific bit of Modern Philosophy and why "disembodied stuff like a thing-in-itself" was ever even conceived of. I was genuinely interested to hear what people have to say about a particular issue a particular school of thought, called Modern Philosophy, came up with. I never said ALL current philosophers belong to that class. I never said that ALL philosophers of that class have that particular issue. If you do not have an interest in the particular subject I am asking about by all means invest your time elsewhere. Badgering me for not explaining and identifying all the metes and bounds, genus' and species' of various schools of philosophy and all their individual adherents since the 17th century is not particularly enjoyable... and doing THAT was never my intention nor purpose. Feel free to start your own thread on that subject if you wish I am sure not to participate in it. If you are interested in discussing the subject of my post and the specific questions it raises by all means please feel welcome to continue to participate in this thread I created. This last I mean in all earnestness, and if in response civility ensues in the spirit of the above, I will sweep everything said heretofore aside, and do my best to discuss it with you afresh.

I propose the Forum Policy include a clause about moderators, said clause including holding them to a high standard of conduct, given their prestige, their additional powers, and the perception that the fact they, by and in every action committed thereby are acting on behalf of and being associated with ObjectivismOnline itself. i.e. their every word reflects on the standards, integrity, intelligence, of ObjectiveOnline, its community, and its owner, officers and directors. I move that: heckling, badgering, and/or harassment by Moderators be forbidden based upon and in keeping with what is stated above..

Thank you Plasmatic for clarifying for Louie what "Modern Philosophy" is, and that it is different from "Post-Modern Philosophy". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_philosophy Would I be correct to assume some current philosophers would characterize themselves as followers of "Modern Philosophy" while others might call themselves "Post-Modern"? Do you think you could, for example, still find a self-proclaimed "Hegelian" or "Kantian" philosophy professor out there? Just to confirm my understanding, would you agree schools of Modern Philosophy and followers thereof (alive OR dead) are/were as "bad" (to put it as Louie did so eloquently and adroitly) as made out in the OP? Finally, what are your thoughts re. my specific questions? I'm curious to know what you think.

In the last two paragraphs it is hard to tell if you propose 1. that space as a relationship has a minimum distance or 2. if you are stating that the 2 instances of the ultimate constituents approaching each other eventually touch at a same position in space. In either case, i.e. by either of your definitions of space, there is no space between them, either they are: 1. at the minimum relational distance and there is no relational space defined (no unit smaller) between them; or 2. touching at a same position and hence there is no relational space between them so asking "wouldn't the (relational) space between" them literally contain nothing?, is nonsensical. You have presupposed there IS NO (relational) space between them to begin with, hence talking about what that contains is meaningless.

Title: Modern Philosopher's Bemoaning of "not knowing things in themselves" Just what is it these philosophers are bemoaning man cannot know? What is claimed to be missing in our knowledge of things which constitutes our not being able to know the "things in themselves"? Just what is the distinction (to these fellows) between "the thing" and "the thing in-itself"? Why do they claim the senses provide only "indirect" perception of reality as opposed to "direct" perception of reality? What is claimed to be missing in actual perception which otherwise would make it "direct"? My impression is that what they want is for knowledge to provide an omnipotent complete revelation, not only of that the thing is and what properties/attributes/behaviors it exhibits from a third person view, but what it is like to BE the thing from a first person view. e.g. we cannot know what a piece of music sounds like in itself because we only know what it sounds like TO US... (this implies what they want is knowledge of something like... what the music sounds like to itself or knowledge of what is like to BE music...) Of course we can never know what it is like to BE any other aspect of reality because we have identity, as do our perceptual apparatus... Any speculation as to what these philosophers (knowingly or unknowingly) were really aiming at?

Thank you for your considered response.

Plasmatic said: Good point and you may be hitting the nail on the head when you state "encroaching on philosophic" grounds. I think this, the assumption that a vacuum WOULD be encroaching on philosophic grounds, is the error I am trying to identify and here is why: One must distinguish between: 1) the claiming that "nothing" is a something or like a something which can have an attribute such as position and volume; and 2) claiming the non-existence of a particular relationship (not an entity) between or among entities IF one only asserts 2) it is perfectly valid BECAUSE space is ONLY a relationship. It is NOT a container that exists and contains "a nothing" where there are no entities or portions thereof, it is literally an unoccupied relationship. There was a speck "directly in-between" those two spheres, there are no specks "directly in-between" those spheres, and more over there are no entities nor any portions thereof "directly in-between" those two spheres. By definition "directly in-between" those two spheres is empty. (I could say the position does not "exist" now because nothing is there NOW, but conceiving of space as having "theres" that are and are not as things occupy them and then do not, would be a more complicated conception which attempts a half-reification and half-relational description. It is simpler to avoid all reification of space, remember that "there" only ever is relational, determine if the relation is occupied or not and be done with it) I submit no one can prove Leonard Peikoff's pocket cannot empty... except with special sciences.

I agree. Space is not an entity. It exists as a relationship between entities.

By definition of "Relativity" velocity is not "absolute"... so nothing is simply "at rest" ... there is a "rest frame" for an object K with respect to which (or in which) K has a velocity of zero.

I think the first error of the OP was the very placement of the post in "Metaphysics and Epistemology"

By definition nothing is defined as "at rest". Such would require an absolute frame of reference in which velocity were zero. I've studied special relativity and general relativity, I do not recall ever coming across a passage saying that space itself "moved". I think you are mistaken about this one HD.

I don't know about 1) but for 2) I think Objectivism makes room for a distinction between entities and existents, so your comment 2) is suspect without further clarification.

If you agree with her, you would know her philosophy holds dogmatism as invalid. You would also know that her philosophy upholds certain axioms and corollaries as absolutes. Absolutes not to be taken on faith or blindly believed but arrived at by reason.

OK adding to the list, something generated by the symbolic logic system is useless, but the entire system taken as a whole is useful. So now a few final questions for GM: 1. Do you take symbolic logic to be in some way applicable to the fields of the philosophy of existence and the acquisition of knowledge by man, i.e. metaphysics and epistemology or is it applicable only to the special sciences of mathematics and how computational constructs of man can be made to function? 2. Are you familiar with Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology and do you consider yourself an Objectivist? 3. On an aside, and keeping entirely to mathematical constructs I was wondering if there were an analogue to actual logic which is like the imaginary numbers, that is to say.... well how do I put it, let me restart: Is there an Alogic which is to logic, what imaginary numbers are to real numbers. The imaginary numbers were fabricated to define imaginary abstractions x which could solve the equation X^2 = negative number, so that any written algebraic equations (presumably of certain form) were solvable. So if the imaginary numbers are an extension of the real numbers are there systems of logic which added imaginary or odd elements to make the logical system more "complete"/solvable?

Labor taxes... of even only 1 day a year is still forced labor.

Show me just one example of a calculation, step by step, illustrating P->~P which is useful and P is something with identity.

I could not have said it better nor proved the point so succinctly myself. Thank you for this. I have my own system of logic by which I have evaluated "symbolic logic" and its "validity" as regards the realm of reality. There is nothing wrong with building mental constructs divorced from reality as long as you do not commit the error of thinking or claiming that they apply to reality, nor that any errors arising from such constructs imply any sort of problem (read "paradox") in real actual logic as applied to actual reality. There are no paradoxes in reality only errors of logic, which is not logic at all.

Tell me if I get this correct: 1. "then" as such has no meaning (in this context of its use in symbolic "logic") 2 Only "If.. then..." has meaning (in the context) 3. The only meaning (in the context) of If.. then... is determined by a "truth table" Whatever standard about a chosen "truth" table which is required for it to meet the standard of a valid "logic", it does not include avoidance of statements: "If Trump is in Hamlet then Trump is not in Hamlet" as meaningless contradictions?

What possible meaning do you attribute to "then" in (3)?

Also by what definition of "contradiction" is the statement: "If P IS true THEN P IS false" not a contradiction?

Premise 1: P->~P means "If P is true then P is false" Premise 2: P->~P is not a contradiction Conclusion: The statement "If P is true then P is false" is not a contradiction. How can this not be a contradiction, I mean if P IS true how can it BE false?

Thank you. With regard to the original post can you explain exactly, and step by step, what A->~A means?

Perhaps it is unfortunate that we call this "logic" instead of "information mechanism" or "data responsive functionalism". There is nothing wrong with determining, conceiving, cataloguing the behavior of computers. I do ask though what in any real context would A -> ~A be applicable even in a computer program? Here I assume A is exactly the same on either side, else a different symbol would have been used on one side. Imagine an algorithm having the following pseudocode: 100 Fetch A (whatever it is) from Memory A 110 Translate/Validate A as something from which Truth can actually be determined (optional code) 120 Evaluate Truth of A generating T/F of A data 130 Store T/F data in Memory T/F of A 140 Fetch contents of Memory A and T/F of A Memory and run "Implication", generating Implication Data 150 Store Implication data in Memory Implication 160 Fetch Memory Implication to Verify implication 170 Translate Memory implication, to determine implication T/F value associated with A 180 Store Implication T/F value associated with A in temporary Memory Temp T/F 190 Checking validity of calculation by comparing Memory T/F of A with Memory Temp T/F For step 190 to come up with a mismatch, clearly the "logic" of evaluating A must be different from that evaluating the "implication" of A to the point of contradiction. Again here the As are exactly the same but somehow truth or falsity can apply differently? Independent of my example when could it ever be applicable? ............................. Whether A is a statement, a proposition, or anything, A->~A purports to say that however you evaluate A on the left, THAT EVALUATION implies evaluation on the right which is opposite to that on the left, ALL while assuming the subject of evaluation e.g. proposition and the method of evaluation (determine truth) is the same. It essentially purports to say that doing the exact same thing is contradictory. My point here is that when A is meaningless and cannot be evaluated, making any statements about its implications are as meaningless as the original statement.

1. You misunderstand, I am not arguing against anything Boydstun said. 2. In your example, if A is a proposition "If I am human, then I am an animal" then A -> ~A still does not make any sense. If the proposition is "True" (assuming it can be) how can it at the same time be false? 3. "But humans aren't the same as animals"... this is an irrelevant observation... so WHAT if humans aren't animals? A is not B ? If A is a species and B is a genus, A can be a type of B or be an instance of B, or a concrete which is a member of A can also be a member of B (e.g. you are a human and you are an animal). and Yes, you are a human and you are an animal. But you cannot ever be what you are not. What is your point? This is incoherent. 4. "The law of identity is different" - Eiuol April 27, 2015 - You said it. only for those things which are not themselves brother...

Nice sentiment on the surface, but the pyramids were actually built by slaves. Physical slaves to totalitarianism and mental slaves to religion and mysticism. Had they been built by tradespeople who were paid on the free market for their labors by a person who had gained their wealth not through conquest and dictatorship... they would be very inspiring objects to behold. That said, the movie sounds great!