/lit/ - Literature

>>5249443

Spatio-temporality is a synthetic a priori truth, you knuckle-dragging harlequin babies.

>>5143455

>The goal is to maximize, in a sense, the horizons of possibilities themselves.

Is this not chance? How can one know which actions will maximize possibilities, particularly how moving into an "ethico-aesthetic" perspective will accomplish such a thing in a manner <i> better </i> than the "scientificistic" perspective?

>>5143400

So by maximize it seems fair to suppose you mean optimize. To optimize one's physical gains is a question entirely of chance, is it not? Performing actions that increase the likelihood of significant physical gains. The question then becomes: by "gains" what do we mean? Do we mean pleasure? Many may argue so. The problem then becomes: is the individual who is pleased necessarily the individual of whom you speak?

The issue ultimately becomes: you have a very bizarre and unstable definition of self-actualization which you're not articulating correctly.

>>5142945

What is meant by "potential"? What is meant by "living to one's full potential"?

>>4606245

Anyone in Chicago?

>>4606622

No. Simply put, the Aristotelian criticism that the form of X, which shall be named Y, must then require some form Z that acts as the form of the quality that differentiates X and Y, and so on ad infinitum. This infinite regress produces an absurd becomes the reductio: each new form justifying the previous relationship in a sort of decision tree-like fashion.

empty post (ignore this)

A 20,000 page tome recollecting the lives of 12 generations of a family of Estonian seamstresses; it explores the fichtean political foundationalism of transcendental ego and "I" as being a self-evident recursive truth .

>>4344871

coz hume's no-ought-from-is

>>4272104
>>4272104
not necessarily cares about itself, but for all we know the case could be "For all x, there exists a y that x cares about," and y could be me in all cases of x. It doesn't follow that I care about everyone else, or that there exists anyone in the world that cares about everyone else.

>>4272104
not necessarily cares about itself, but for all we know the case could be "For all x, there exists a y that x cares about, and y could be me in all cases of x." It doesn't follow that I care about everyone else. In fact, it definitely doesn't follow.

>>4272006 (OP)

P1: Vx∃y Θ(x,y)
C: ~[ Vx∃y Θ(x,y) -> Vx∃y Θ(y,x) ]
Vx∃y Θ(x,y)
Θ(a,y)
Vx∃y Θ(y,x)
Θ(y,a)

It presumes reciprocity is what the problem becomes; it's reduced to x cares about y, so y must care about x. For all we know, every motherfucker on Earth cares about the same person.

>>4269716

>What do people of /lit/ think about Pascal's Wager?

constructing a simple decision matrix reveals his poor presupposition that the odds are 50-50.

I. Let the world be a set, S = {}, of all that is conceivable.

-This includes both material objects and, if they exist in the world, abstract entities and propositions.

II. If all which exists is all which is conceivable, then if S is in itself conceivable, it must be a member of S.

III. If S is a member of S, then it is the set of all sets.

IV. This cannot be true, because of Russell's paradox

V. There exists some thing outside of the world.

~ ∀x <λ.θ(x)>(c) ⊂ [<λ.θ(c)> ⊂ <λ.θ(<λ.θ(c)>)>]
1. ∀x <λ.θ(x)>(c)
1. ~[<λ.θ(c)> ⊂ <λ.θ(<λ.θ(c)>)>]
2 <λ.θ(c)>
1.11 ~ <λ.θ(<λ.θ(c)>)>
2.11 ~<λ.θ(c)>

QED

>>4106091

Saul Kripke

or

Frege

or

Alfred North Whitehead

>>4071455

What about things that aren't living but may be conscious?

Inanimate objects can have phenomenological consciousness in a Whiteheadian or in a panpsychist sense - something similar to Chalmer's naturalism, say.

The point is: using "whether object X is living" as the basis for such linguistic alterations is completely arbitrary.

I'd love to hear how you'd define "living" to begin with.

>>4065037

If your professor is fine, then:

A quarter of the class will be epistemology, philosophical logic, philosophy of mathematics, and set theory - analytic/synthetic distinction, a priori/a posteriori distinction; raven's paradox; orders of infinity, cardinality, the continuum hypothesis.

A quarter of the class will be like an LSAT Logical Reasoning prep course: reading arguments and analyzing the reasoning;

The remaining half will be the formal logic you're expecting: first-order propositional and predicate logic; you may briefly discuss completeness and soundness if time permits it - but you will not discuss model theory.

fichte ist die nachkantischen idealist sie wahlten

oh dear, my sides ! ~

>>3616426

Strategies for arguing:

>call everything stated "retardation"
>don't explain why or address the points at all
>????
>profit

that, ladies and gentleman, is a class-A act! he'll be here all week!

pussy-ass bitch evading like a mothafucka.

2abstruse4u
2deep4u

>>3616308

>read anything about it

About what, pray tell? is this going to be a series of inscrutable posts that never help me understand what you're talking about?

>>3616303

Provide counter-arguments, don't talk shit. maybe if you could wrap your mind around my ideas things wouldn't be so hard for you, bitchhtits

address the problems with the post, otherwise close your face-pussy, u cunts

>>3616245

>don't know or think shit on this
what does that even mean, m8 ?

don't confuse your own subjective incomprehensibility for objective incomprehensibility, darling

if you don't get something, shut ya trap and go watch repo games

>>3616216

let consciousness = awareness, obviously. i see no other alternative means of interpretation for this particular example. context clues would be of great benefit to you. if something that isn't clear need be defined, the proof isn't assumed a failure. suppose someone believed "simultaneously" were a loaded term, would the lack of a definition of it mean the proof has also failed?

If God is conscious of X things, he has to distribute his consciousness equally amongst them. if something is aware of everything, they have to devote some piece of their total awareness to that thing, no? I can be aware of a television and of my cat meowing at the same time, get it?

You clearly don't understand the argument. God has to be aware of everything in the world. So if there are n objects in the world, then got is devoting X of his consciousness to each piece. Problem is, since n is infinite, God has to be equally devoting a piece of his awareness to n. But if this happens, then the amount he devotes has gotta be 0 for it to account for all them objects!

Also, you're clearrrlllyy not a proponent of panpsychism. all things have phenomenal consciousness, duhhh. it's like talking to a wall here...

>>3616158

Orders of infinity aren't quite relevant to this discussion, but you are correct. Consider the example: there are more real numbers than natural numbers, but both sets of numbers are infinite. It's actually pretty simple to prove infinities are greater than or equal to one another too.

Proof that the set of rational numbers = set of natural numbers:

1/1 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5............
2/1 2/2..............
3/1.............................
4/1..........................

1-to-1 correspondence between the rational numbers and natural numbers. This means that for every natural number, there is a rational number it can be paired up with. If this matrix continues, we find that this'll always be true - neat, right?!

Anyway: so yeah, 1/infinity is always 0 regardless of the order of infinity.

>>3616127

Was it not convincing? And, if not, is this due to it being a proof of God in itself or because it's truly a bad proof?

is it because the likelihood that it is false outweighs the likelihood that it is true due to the many failed attempts of past proofs?

i'd be interested in hearing why it's soooo lazy. Maybe you're just not understanding it.