Leontiskos

So if you change your mind and renege, do you still owe me the money, or not?

When I say that you owe me $25,000, why couldn't you just say, "I changed my mind," like before? ()

Take a contract. You tell me that you will build me a house in a year, and if you don't complete it in that time you owe me $25,000. The year complete...

I am curious whether you think contracts exist. If no one is obliged to fulfill a promise, then surely no one is obliged to fulfill a contract? You wi...

- I was just being honest about my assessment of your state of knowledge regarding this topic. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems obvious to me that you d...

As I said:

The backstop here is the way you will also claim that terms like 'ought' and 'should' make no sense to you if they are interpreted in their colloquial...

- ...And the abuse continues. Put me on ignore. I would love that.

- It's obvious that you haven't given the topic of negligence much thought. I'm going to focus on those who are willing to put in some work in order t...

In the past Michael has said that God would not change things, but there is good reason to doubt Anscombe's etymological inferences. William Diem, in ...

They are not the same. To utilize a principle while reasoning is not to "perform an algorithm." You are creating a caricature. No, I don't. In fact no...

The first page of the thread contains two basic ways of defining contradictions. You gave a third: mere negation and the attendant inverted truth tabl...

@"Michael" is presumably saying that obligations don't exist, because you can't place yourself under an obligation, because there is nothing about the...

Rather, I'm interested in you doing something more than making curt pronouncements from on high. This is a philosophy forum, after all. Here is the al...

Yes, this was my concern. Tones requires the assumption, as I thought he must.

- See

- Yes - I wasn't sure, but it fortuitously solved my conundrum as well.

- Thanks - I concede your point. I keep reading the OP in terms of a dialogue between two people, probably because of some reading I have been doing o...

Then give your proof.

- In your concision you conflated 'algorithmic' with 'principled', and ended up confusing an exception with a rule (by using "Buridan's Ass" as the fo...

It is relevant because, like you so often do on these forums, you whip up an imaginary problem. You have no difficulty understanding the obligation th...

I'd go farther and say it is of no use to anyone, period. :grin: Dictionaries should solve it, but they won't for Michael. Michael will sooner deny ev...

Your presupposition here straddles the two definitions of a contradiction in an interesting way. Using the same example I gave privately: "The car is ...

You think the two propositions logically imply ~A? It seems rather that what they imply is that A cannot be asserted. When we talk about contradiction...

Yours is the best post in the thread imo. It is especially interesting that what I called fallacious your source explicitly calls a contradiction (). ...

Well here is the first sentence of the article I linked above: You seem like someone who just hasn't thought or read about this topics much at all, to...

And that is the sort of thing you tell your professional clients?

Sufficient to avoid the conclusion that your promise was insincere.

So you responded, "No, because I may be prevented from doing so." But then you deleted that post and wrote a different one after thinking more careful...

Right, and is it not also true that if a promise is sincere then one will do what they promised (unless some unforeseen impediment intervenes)?

Why can't you? Why do you answer, "No"? Banno is right, you need to work through it. The problem with your position is found in those two little lette...

- :up: ...and now a forgotten pm comes to mind. :blush:

Presumably you could also run a truth table on this form. If neither conjunct is inherently fallacious and yet the truth table comes out fallacious (i...

Two propositions contradict if the truth or falsity of one entails the falsity or truth of the other (i.e. (P ? ~Q) ^ (~P ? Q))*. Formally, then, they...

Why are we still talking about asses? We could say that the earthworm made a choice to cross the road, and yet we would clearly be using the word 'cho...

You're a shill. :roll: I've put you on ignore. You reek of the ideology of OnlinePhilosophyClub.

So you think negligence pertains to the legal order but not to the moral order?

Here's J. A. K. Thomson's translation: Here is W. D. Ross: The Nicomachean Ethics is precisely this elaboration. Again, it's pretty clear that Aristot...

The word "abortion" is for ideologues what a squirrel is for dogs. When they see the word they forget themselves immediately and are compelled to make...

There is a more serious and pertinent quandary underlying this recent discussion with @"Joshs" and @"Janus", one closely tied to the moral decay of ou...

I am saying that a choice or a decision only properly exists when it is a consequence of deliberation or ratiocination. More generally, I am saying th...

Right. The objection seems to be, "Someone could say that they do not desire happiness so long as they use the word 'happiness' in a way that is not i...

Very good. It now seems much better to me. :up: Good point. This is the sort of ambiguity that seems to always follow the PDE, namely cases which are ...

I think you just need to think a bit harder about what it means to make a choice. You can of course think of a choice as whimsical opting for no reaso...

Again, maybe he has two (or more) purposes: explicating Plotinus and defending philosophy. Gerson is very clear that his thesis is not supposed to do ...

The very first sentence of the Nicomachean Ethics: (or the second, depending on your translation)

And thus you falsely conclude that we require no principles to make decisions, because you think a coin-toss is a decision.

For Aristotle you would be misusing the word "decision." Here is what Aquinas says: Presumably then we could opt for one side on the basis of chance o...

I would simply wonder if Gerson is doing two different things simultaneously. In a similar way, I wonder if Plato could be doing two different things ...

But is eating arbitrary? When we decide to finally stop deliberating and make a decision our decision is not arbitrary, even if certain aspects of it ...