You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Leontiskos

Comments

As I've said, taking away something you value is not punishment. If it was then the thief who stole your car has necessarily punished you.
July 14, 2024 at 20:25
And by "punished" you presumably do not mean what every dictionary in the world says, because then we would be right back to the equivocation on "pena...
July 14, 2024 at 20:21
No, you think they will forcibly take some money from you. One is only penalized for having done something wrong, and in denying obligations you deny ...
July 14, 2024 at 20:12
Oh really? A contract is like the sergeant who goes around commanding people what they are to do? This is in line with your first harebrained theory t...
July 14, 2024 at 19:53
A contract establishes an obligation, and therefore someone who is more likely to fulfill his obligations is more likely to fulfill his contracts. You...
July 14, 2024 at 19:32
Money, oaths of office, marriage, contracts, the possibility of perjury, internet trust certificates, banking, fiduciary responsibilities, the list go...
July 14, 2024 at 18:50
The obvious objection to this idea is to note that this restriction goes beyond the typical syntactical requirements for a formula being well formed. ...
July 14, 2024 at 06:28
- Yes, in fact I had forgotten the bit you quoted. I have only done a close read of MMP once and then skimmed it a few times afterwards, but skimming ...
July 14, 2024 at 06:02
Yes, this is similar to 's vampire argument. Right: another way of putting it is that you are expressing a phenomenon which is not able to be captured...
July 14, 2024 at 05:50
A promise establishes an obligation, and that obligation ceases if: 1) it is fulfilled, 2) the promise is "broken", or 3) the promisee releases you fr...
July 14, 2024 at 04:59
Are we trying to teach Michael how to make a promise so he can have a real girlfriend and really get married? It's sort of a sine qua non quality in a...
July 14, 2024 at 04:23
That makes sense to me (even though symbolic logicians must interpret all such things as material implication, as they have no alternative). Related: ...
July 14, 2024 at 03:22
Therefore...? How would you know, given your curious claim that, "There is no 'standard' of foreseeability"? Obviously. What isn't realistic? Constant...
July 14, 2024 at 02:49
This is to ignore foreseen effects (and also to ignore foreseeable effects). Bob's point is presumably that unforeseeable effects are not intentional....
July 13, 2024 at 22:46
Thanks, I may check this out in time. My sense, though, is that you can't fully formalize reasoning. In particular Aristotle's final condition for dem...
July 13, 2024 at 22:24
- I went back to read this. I agree with the conclusion: But I think Kreeft is working with a caricature in the earlier parts, as he has a tendency to...
July 13, 2024 at 22:06
- Okay, thanks for that. And I put in some additional leg work for your argument in the other thread.
July 13, 2024 at 20:08
Note that the cognitively challenged person is not capable and therefore, for Pantagruel, would be causing an effect accidentally. I think you two are...
July 13, 2024 at 20:00
I could try to make the critique more precise, although the only person on these forums who has shown a real interest in what I would call 'meta-logic...
July 13, 2024 at 19:25
My point is that it is a vacuous instance of validity, more clearly seen in the form <((a?(b?¬b))?¬a>. It is formal logic pretending to say something....
July 13, 2024 at 17:38
And the rest of us would simply ask what a promise is supposed to be without the inclusion of obligation. As I said above, it makes as much sense to a...
July 13, 2024 at 16:46
The original question was, "Do (A implies B) and (A implies notB) contradict each other?" On natural language they contradict each other. On the under...
July 13, 2024 at 16:41
Right, and note also the way that Flannel confuses the conditions of a material implication with the principle of explosion beginning <here>. I gave a...
July 13, 2024 at 15:46
- Yes, I think this is right. I keep thinking about my aversion to "? ~A" (). The most basic objection is that an argument with two conditional premis...
July 13, 2024 at 15:38
@"Janus"' point applies to logic as well. Formal logic is parasitic on natural logic, and "logic" does not mean "formal logic," or some system of form...
July 13, 2024 at 15:16
That's sort of where I disagree. See: The idea here seems to be that it is a good rhetorical device. It is a good parable or lesson. Indeed, it was or...
July 13, 2024 at 15:03
Here's some help for you from the dictionary: Merriam-Webster - Contradictory (Adjective): involving, causing, or constituting a contradiction | contr...
July 13, 2024 at 07:02
- If you look at the antecedents of "Buridan's Ass," you will note that none of them use an animal as the example. The reason for this is clear: anima...
July 13, 2024 at 06:33
And I already corrected your misinterpretation in <this post>. I'm glad you finally figured this out and even came up with your own fun way of describ...
July 13, 2024 at 06:22
You don't even understand what is being said. :roll:
July 13, 2024 at 06:01
No, I was there giving an answer to the question at hand. I give up. Go read Lionino's first post on the first page. He explains the two basic senses ...
July 13, 2024 at 05:58
The question at hand is, "What is the contradiction of, 'If lizards were purple then they would be smarter'?" The negation of a material conditional w...
July 13, 2024 at 05:44
"Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?" Put it together: ...therefore the consequent cannot be affirmed as true in this case. Therefore...
July 13, 2024 at 05:26
- On explosion the consequent "follows" in the sense that it can be affirmed as true. That is not the case here.
July 13, 2024 at 05:24
It does not follow; it is moot. According to material implication (A ? B) is true if A is false, but B does not follow given that A is false. We canno...
July 13, 2024 at 05:22
I don't think the principle of explosion is quite the same as material implication. It's kind of the opposite. We are running from a contradiction, no...
July 13, 2024 at 05:05
Okay: Supposing someone has an unforeseeable seizure, would they be punished in this case? I agree. Fair enough. So I have to apologize. The quality o...
July 13, 2024 at 03:59
But the difficulties of material implication do not go away here. You are thinking of negation in terms of symbolic logic, in which case the contradic...
July 13, 2024 at 03:46
I don't think yours is a bad translation. The point is that Aristotle is setting out the meaning (or at least his working meaning) of 'good' in that p...
July 13, 2024 at 03:26
- Thanks, that was well put. :up:
July 13, 2024 at 03:10
And you think it is possible to claim that one of the contractors is more reliable without at the same time saying that he is more likely to fulfill h...
July 13, 2024 at 02:21
- I will come back to this, but I want to present a different angle before I go: Leontiskos: What if a contractor in your area was known to never fulf...
July 13, 2024 at 00:25
Well, if you don't like the word 'obligation', then instead of trying to convince the judge that you have no obligation to fulfill your contract you s...
July 13, 2024 at 00:14
Well, suppose your judge is a good philosopher, and he admits that laws cannot be premised on non-existent realities. And really, wouldn't any logical...
July 13, 2024 at 00:06
But why? Why not reason with the authority and explain to him, like you did to me, that you intended to fulfill the contract when you signed it and no...
July 12, 2024 at 23:59
Earlier you told me that you honestly believe that you can just change your mind and decide not to fulfill a promise. Why can't you just change your m...
July 12, 2024 at 23:56
Did you tell him you changed your mind and reneged?
July 12, 2024 at 23:53
And so presumably after the deadline, "I owe you money," just means, "Some authority will fine me if I don't give up the money." Why is the authority ...
July 12, 2024 at 23:52
Hmm? What are X and Y?
July 12, 2024 at 23:49
Well, you are the one who told me that you owed me the money. What did you mean when you affirmed that proposition?
July 12, 2024 at 23:47