Bob Ross

It sounds like you are saying they don’t exist in reality at all, and then noting that we cannot think them away.

So this just depends on whether one believes one can have knowledge of the things-in-themselves or not; and I think we are basically saying the same t...

Good. My only point is that that is incredibly counter-intuitive to predominant ethics: pretty much everyone who studies ethics will agree that trying...

It is an entity iff it exists. Oh I see. I was interpreting it under modal logic, not propositional logic.

Nothing about what you said demonstrated my argument was circular. How was I begging the question?

Sure. Then use the predicate logic formulation I made.

What is under contention in my quote was not the existence of logic, or its objectivity; but, rather, whether or not it is factual (objectively true) ...

That is true, it should be C -> T.

'Nothing', as a concept, nevertheless must be definable if it is to be utilized in discussion. It cannot simply be equivalent to no "specific value". ...

Is sounds like you are saying that you do not believe space and time are substances nor that they are objective relations or properties of objects, is...

I understood your points and don't really disagree with them; but I am unsure as to whether you believe space and time are substances or not. What do ...

Space as thing in itself is a necessarily postulation for this OP, because it is explorer which position is best to take on that subject: should space...

No worries: I can relate to having an idea and finding that it is harder to convey to the audience (or a specific audience or individual) than (origin...

How's it circular? Demonstrate where I am begging the question.

I see. Here’s my understanding of it in syllogisms (and let me know if I am misunderstanding): P1: If an entity is the pure negation of all possible e...

Same way we determine a set is infinite without counting it: stipulations. We cannot determine that a set, S, is infinite by counting the elements (as...

There cannot be such a thing as a ‘epistemic entity’ because it is, when taken literally, a contradiction in terms: an entity implies something within...

Is says “there does not exist any proposition x, such that is it true”; and this was not my original intention, admittedly, but it is nevertheless wel...

:kiss: Which part is odd? And why?

The size of an infinity is determined by the size of its elements, not the size of the collection (viz., it is not determined by how many elements the...

I would say that matter is the substance and motion, space, and time are relations of and between entities that are made up of that matter.

That doesn’t make any sense, unless you are just conveying that time is just the form of experience. I don’t know what this is supposed to be conveyin...

No. It is material equivalence. By my lights, one could parse nothingness as ~?x (x) or ~?x (Exists<x>).

Agreed—the entirety of which depends on one’s view on the nature of space and time, which is largely what is being put under contention in this OP. ‘S...

You seem to be giving a sparknote of the landscape, but I am more interested in what your take is on space and time. What do you think?

What I am trying to convey is that spatiotemporal relations exist in reality and our minds construct actual extension and temporality to represent tho...

When someone posits a hypothetical with “all else being equal”, they do not mean that the variables at play are equal: they mean that there is a speci...

No, C is biconditionally implicated to T; not equivalent. This is fair that one needs to explicate what they mean by nothing. I happen to believe noth...

Your pseudo-syllogism doesn’t produce a logical contradiction and, thusly, doesn’t prove the logical impossibility of nothing becoming something. Your...

With respect to your responses to my hypotheticals, all I can say (without reiterating myself) is that you have misunderstood the nature of them and, ...

Firstly, I want to disclaim that you are NOT aggravating me nor am I frustrated with you; and I apologize if my responses are giving you that impressi...

:wink:

In terms of “hiding” behind moral realism, it cannot be hiding if the OP is an exposition of a moral realist theory. If you have disputes with moral r...

I think that my contentions with your view can be split into two categories: internal and external. My external critiques originate from the fact that...

Any theory can possibly “describe” moral realism. That it is a form of moral realism depends on if it is purporting at least the following thesis: 1. ...

By “productive” I just mean the standard colloquial definition of (roughly) “having the quality or power of producing, especially in abundance”: I do ...

Firstly, I want to say that I really appreciate your responses, as I can tell you are putting in a lot of effort to convey as much as possible about y...

That is a part of ethics, the other is: what is good?

I guess it depends on what you are referring to by 'egoism' and 'altruism'; and, to me, in a marriage one is acting for one's own sake and another's s...

I think it might be best if I give a brief elaboration of this moral realist theory, and see what you disagree with. So far, it seems as though most o...

I am not arguing for moral subjectivism. This position (in my OP) is a form of moral realism. Nope: we don’t define what flourishing is other than the...

This is perfectly compatible with agnostic atheism. An agnostic atheist knows what it means for god(s) not to exist, so they can “rationally” believe ...

This is a good way, indeed, to get people to generally care, to some extent, about others; but it does not overcome egoism: it merely explicates the i...

I would say that the instances of good are also non-normative. I didn’t follow this part: can you please elaborate? I would say that The Good is not a...

Then, is it true that the time interval that should be used is the longest foreseeable future? It seems like you are saying that the best action to ta...

Absolutely no worries! I appreciate your responses. One only knows what is contained in a concept after abducing/inducing that very concept. Prior to ...

Correct. Y = a president is one elected to preside over an organized body of people, such as the chief executive of a republic. X = bob is going to be...

No, it is that there is a temporal relationship between the knowledge used to believe “bob will become president” and that belief. I am not saying tha...

My question is about the next step after this. You are just noting that time factors into potential expressive and material existences, which is just ...

If by this you just mean that you were told “Bob will become president”, then this does not negate my point. One must know something—i.e., one must be...