Corvus

I am asking you your reasons for your opposition.

Were you opposing the point without knowing what you were opposing against?

What is your reasoning that my point is not correct? Please tell us. Don't lean on the others' shoulders or hide behind their shadows.

I have given out the explanations based on the reasonings. But you just say, well the other folks don't agree with you, and University California says...

If you don't agree with something, come with your reasonings why it is not true, rather than simply saying, the other folks don't agree with you, and ...

I will not try argue with you. Whatever I say, I know you will come back with some irrational oppositions with no content. No logical arguments and ra...

"I am wet, therefore I swim." doesn't make sense, as "I think, therefore I am." doesn't make sense. "Think" doesn't warrant for anything. "Think" mean...

In a proposition, it is. You are trying best to make the point. I can see that. But we are talking within the syntactic and semantic realm with no add...

How is the relationship God possible, if God is unknown? Does K defines what God is? Why "unfortunately"?

I did bow out from this thread, but you have directed your post with your poorly reasoned writings to me, misleading my points. Hence I am briefly bac...

Thanks :) I am not an expert in Logic myself, but it can be an interesting subject at times. I think I will reread my Logic book again to refresh the ...

I think I said enough on what I had to say. Much of them were just the repeating the ideas and points, which you seem cannot accept. I am bowing out f...

Yes, I am bowing out from this thread after this message. I was going to do that about 10 pages ago. But I was getting frustrated to see the continuin...

I have explained on the point in my previous post clearly enough.

Agreed. Thinking (Psychology) ===> Existence (Ontology, Epistemology). This is a leap. It is not even a logical leap. It is a psychological or paranor...

Yeah you are still right. Folks seem to think still I think therefore I am is some sort of logical statement, hence all the confusions. Because they a...

No you are not. Your reasoning and understanding are spot on.

In the course of the proof, they are both assumptions until "I don't exist" is found False, when we checked it against the fact of human life in the w...

Yes, correct. You have got it spot on. 'I think therefore I am' implies 'I do not think, therefore I do not exist'. It is logically valid (reasoning v...

Great minds think alike. Fully agreed with your fair and accurate analysis and comment on the point. :cool: :up:

Suppose this is a typical response when the hidden ignorance was revealed. :nerd:

We seem in agreement there even if not in complete degree. Well, that's a progress suppose. Thank you for your input on the point.

This is true. It is real to you, but it is nothing to me. Likewise, you would never know what I am thinking. It is true and real to me, but nothing to...

Thinking is a subjective mental activity. Content of thinking is private with no access possibility to other minds. To the owner of the mind, thinking...

Of course it is valid. Hence the assumption, Not P -> Not Q is valid. That was all it was trying to present. You too, seems not knowing the difference...

You are back to your nonsense sophistry again. Bye~

I am telling you this again mate. Logic will only show you whether the propositions were derived correctly or not from the assumptions, and that's all...

It is just to show that Not P then Not was validly drawn from P -> Q. That is all.

You don't seem to know what valid means. Valid just means conclusion was derived from the premises. It doesn't mean conclusion is true. A statement ca...

Great points. Thanks for your replies. :cool: :up:

Sure, good point. They disputed that Not P -> Not Q doesn't make sense. But the logic checker says it is valid. (p?q)?(¬p?¬q) (P -> Q) = -P or Q (P. B...

Just was suggesting a would-be better formula. Not biting your hands at all. My point was the content of Not Q was FALSE, therefore the original assum...

K. seem to have had close connection to Christianity and God in many of his writings. How does his concept of God fit into existentialism?

Your formula seems incorrect. This is the correct one.

Descartes said "He thinks, therefore he is." What are you talking about? Thinking is not totality of mind. Thinking also has objects and contents. Des...

To get some ideas. Did you think I quoted him because he was a god? blimey :roll: Could it be a psychological block somewhere in the thought?

But rules are for us to apply them into the individual cases. Rules don't exist just for rules themselves, or for its own sake of just existing as rul...

This is exactly the point I was making with misuse of Logic. P Bogart is not a math god. He is just a math teacher. At Not P --> Not Q, if you were se...

I don't think and I am not is FALSE. so P -> Q is false at that point.

The evidence that you are psychologically biased is based on the fact that, you don't even accept my proposition that we can agree to disagree, and en...

Yes, but your example and the other's examples are the case of categorical mistake. This is the problem with the symbolic classical logic. Because it ...

Good :nerd:

I agree with your idea that language is a tool to communicate, and it can be unclear at times for philosophical discussions. But we also have Formal L...

Was Kierkegaard an existentialist? In what sense yes or no?

Destruction is purely physical, whereas violence is physical plus psychological. Therefore attributing violence to the natural disasters sounds absurd...

Good point. I am not going to deny your point straight away. I wouldn't be that rude. But it seems that you talking about again totally different case...

I thought our discussion had been over about 10 pages ago. You kept on hounding me with the same daft questions and irrelevant comments for some reaso...

Obviously your syntactic confusion has been adding to the whole mix up. Good night.

You are totally ignoring the plant you were talking about in the proposition, and suddenly starting to making random inference of holding some other p...

But you are not holding the plant. You could be holding a plant. You are not even able to difference between "a" and "the".