frank

You can't teach a child right from wrong.

This is the ancient Jewish view, just substitute "interaction with others" with interaction with God's word. It has strengths and weaknesses like all ...

Morality isn't a matter of public agreement. It's something you were born with. This is the Persian view. This is the problem with arguing with Christ...

No, it's a matter of feelings.

What do you mean by "wrong"?

I agree.

You're saying morality rests upon a foundation of true statements. I think it's the other way around. Moral sensibility comes first. Statements are an...

I don't think you're catching my little argument. :blush:

From what reasoning did you infer that it's wrong to kick puppies?

Meaning is use. Of what use is asserting that "It's wrong to kick puppies" other than to say, "Don't kick puppies.". Tractatus.

No, I'm saying that commands aren't truth apt. This is the same as asserting that one ought not kick puppies. Asserting that is just another way to ph...

Commands aren't truth apt.

Oh. But in the ancient world people usually respected foreign gods. If you visited a foreign town, you would first go pay respect to their gods and th...

Can I quote you on that?

Dangerous?

So you don't have faith in anything? Even in the human race?

Anyway, for Kierkegaard, faith is about accepting the world as it is, and accepting oneself in spite of being an asshole. The stories where God shows ...

I think you're overlooking that ideals are pictures of what we want to be rather than what we are. It's the sheep-like culture that idealizes individu...

Isn't this Chinese morality?

The story of Noah is a garbled version of an episode out of the epic of Gilgamesh.

It was worthwhile then?

Kierkegaard saw something profound in it. You see nothing. If I see nothing in Guernica, does that say something about the painting? Or about me?

I was recently told by an 80 year old that it gets better every year. :grimace:

My point was that Hammurabi was both king and head of the national religion. He was seen as transmitting laws that originated with a Babylonian divini...

The law tells you what to do. Our law is a descendant of religious law. All the stuff we have separated out was fused back then.

Did you think all the suffering and struggle was just the lead up to this glorious moment in the history of science? Guess which ancient religion, pre...

So?

Most of the global religions were the science of a former age, along with medicine, engineering, politics and history. We're just sporting around on t...

That's kind of what's happening with human speech. The part that generates speech is different from that part that listens and interprets, so you can ...

But that's what an AI did with a picture of a dog, so it has the potential to see almost anything in a set of lights and darks. What would it do if yo...

I'd like to know if it can identify something out of an abstract image because it can draw something we prompt. For instance, this is based on a photo...

That's cool. I get the most artistic results from giving the program a sentence that makes no sense along with a model image that's abstract.

I draw cartoons of the speakers going "blah blah blah."

:up:

Might just leave it here. :smile:

There's no fact regarding which rules. It's a mind bender for sure. It took me a good while to digest the implications.

There's no fact regarding which rules you've been enacting.

I doubt it

This shows a misunderstanding of Kripke's point. There's no denying that we do things with words, and that we do on occasion follow rules. There's jus...

There's just nothing you can point to and say, "See, this is the rule I've been following for the use of this phrase."

The Private Language argument indicates that there's no way for you to know what rules you've been following up till now. Check out Wittgenstein on Ru...

Check out Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea by Charles Siefe. It's pretty good.

It's a fiction that meaning arises from rule-following. There's no fact of the matter regarding what rules you've followed up til now.

I don't understand how we could replace 1 by 3. That doesn't make any sense. But with the new numbering system, 1/3 would be 1/5.

They were first discovered by the Pythagoreans. They were horrified by them though. They aggressively suppressed the knowledge of irrational numbers p...

How did that happen? If it's based on counting, how did it give rise to things that can't be counted?

That's just blatant idealism.

You asserted P When I asked for your justification, you said "Why not P?" Does that sound rational to you?

Why not?

There's no way to know all the digits that go on it. I think you can express the concept by just saying "pi."