[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.6396140 [View]
File: 20 KB, 283x370, Parmenides.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6396140

what do you mean by "true"?

>> No.5906893 [View]
File: 20 KB, 283x370, Parmenides.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5906893

How could what is perish? How could it have come to be? For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and destruction unknown.

>> No.5224700 [View]
File: 20 KB, 283x370, philosopherp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5224700

Sometimes the early Philosophers confuse me. They should be respected for their role in actually thinking in a time when few others did, but some of their ideas are nuts.

I assume that you are all familiar with Zeno's famous paradoxes. My question is, how could he maintain these beliefs with the evidence that he appears older on one day than he did, say, five years beforehand?

>> No.5149871 [View]
File: 20 KB, 283x370, philosopherp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5149871

Is it sinful because God declares it to be so, or does God declare it to be sinful because it is?

If you choose the first, God's commands must necessarily be arbitrary, and if he declared that killing babies would be good, it would be. In addition, God is not good, since God could only be good if he commanded that humans bring about/preserve him, and this is ridiculous to suggest. Why would humans need to preserve or create an omnipotent deity?

If you choose the second, you've stated that independent moral standards exist whether God is real or not - therefore, he cannot be their creator, and is not the creator of all things.

How could a rational intellectual either solve or negate this dilemma?

>> No.5101883 [View]
File: 20 KB, 283x370, philosopherp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5101883

You've been transported to Ancient Greece, the city of Miletus around 500BCE, and all of a sudden this chap Ishygddamese runs up to you, waving his arms frantically, wielding two torches, and just about tripping over his beard in his excitement. “Hey, hey!” he shouts, “Anon, guess what I’ve discovered! The Sun must be way
closer to the Earth than the Moon! ..."

“Look, I can prove it, if you just use that noggin of yours. Here’s my torch. When it’s
further away from you” – Ishygddamese sprints away, nearly knocking over three terrified Milesian
children in the process, and sets a torch down near a dangerously flammable-looking fish
stall – “it’s dimmer, right? And when I’m really close –” he charges forward and sets the
second torch down right in front of you – “it’s really brighter, see? See how much brighter the
closer torch is than the distant one? All closer lights are always brighter! And the sun is
brighter than the moon, so it’s closer!”

You sigh. “Yes, yes, Ishygddamese,” you say, “but..."

But what? Are you intelligent enough to prove your point to people 2500+ years ago? How would you explain he is wrong?

>> No.5101880 [DELETED]  [View]
File: 20 KB, 283x370, philosopherp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5101880

One twilit evening, when you’re just minding your own business looking for deals on handy
olive presses in the agora of Miletus, this chap Ballocles runs up to you, waving his arms
frantically, wielding two torches, and just about tripping over his beard in his excitement. “Hey,
hey!” he shouts, “[your name in Greek]*, guess what I’ve discovered! The Sun must be way
closer to the Earth than the Moon! ...
“Look, I can prove it, if you just use that noggin of yours. Here’s my torch. When it’s
further away from you” – Ballocles sprints away, nearly knocking over three terrified Milesian
children in the process, and sets a torch down near a dangerously flammable-looking fish
stall – “it’s dimmer, right? And when I’m really close –” he charges forward and sets the
second torch down right in front of you – “it’s really brighter, see? See how much brighter the
closer torch is than the distant one? All closer lights are always brighter! And the sun is
brighter than the moon, so it’s closer!”
You sigh, patiently munching olives left unguarded by some fleeing merchants. “Yes,
yes, Ballocles,” you say, “but..."

But what? Are you intelligent enough to prove your point to people 2500+ years ago? How would you explain he is wrong?

>> No.5089581 [View]
File: 20 KB, 283x370, philosopherp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5089581

You've been transported back in time to Miletus, an ancient Greek city. It is 600BCE.

All of a sudden, this chap Ishygddamese runs up to you and shouts "Hey! I can prove the Sun must be way closer to the Earth than the Moon!"

"Look at this torch. When it's further away from you, it's dimmer, right? And when I'm much closer to you, it's brighter! ALL CLOSER LIGHTS ARE ALWAYS BRIGHTER! And the Sun is much brighter than the Moon, so it's closer!"

You sigh. "Yes, yes, Ishygddamese. But...."

How would you explain that he is wrong? Counterexamples are acceptable - this is Ancient Greece, after all.

Further thought experiments as time goes on.

>> No.4330280 [View]
File: 20 KB, 283x370, Parmenides.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4330280

Why is 'it'?

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]