khaled

yes, but the morality these people have is not necessarily shared. If the entire world is made of masochists, the calculus will calculate the most opt...

ok I'm not sure I see the problem here because I agree with everything you said Yes. Exactly. That's the point this post is trying to highlight (altho...

for premise A to validate premise B means that premise B logically follows from A Logically follows: For B to logically follow A means that there is a...

I didn't mean it like that. I meant that if the entire population knew that their happiness is sustained by the suffering of an innocent child, that e...

in that case, the suffering of the child will cause the suffering of everyone else in society as it is emotionally and ethically unappealing and this ...

Ok forget about that whole argument, I remember we were arguing about this: I believe this is true, you believe it is false. Why do you think it is fa...

If you want to be constructive here instead of randomly saying "you don't know what you're talking about" then go ahead but I don't have much to reply...

I maintain that it is impossible for a person to have knowledge prior to thinking about their own thought and belief therefore both of your objections...

P1: 3 = 1 + 2 P2: 2 + 2= 7 P3: (a+b) + (c+d) = a+b+c+d P4: 1+1=2 C: 3+3 =/= 6 Where is the problem here. I tried looking up what you're telling me to ...

it would really help if you sent me a link or something to what I'm supposed to be looking up. I really don't see the problem here

conclusions are used as premises

I am not avoiding anything, you're missing a distinction between knowledge and belief. All of the examples you have cited so far are examples of belie...

you seem to define knowledge as "strong belief", I define it as "reasoned belief" that's where I think we have an issue

Correct. But thought/belief does not equal knowledge. So no. A child doesn't know that there is a cup on the table he believes there is one. As I've s...

That's not true actually. Nihilism is the recognition that all of society's values (religion, morality, politics, trends, nationalism, etc) are all ul...

That. Where did you get that 2 was true

I agree with everything you just said but I want to know how that doesn't lead to nihilisitic relativism. That's the real problem most people have wit...

That's not the conclusion yet. The conclusion is that since that is the case, any form of logic must start from an arbitrary premise for which there w...

What a hypothetical 8-year-old believes about the existence or lack thereof of a cup on a table does not stand as proof neither for nor against the pr...

P6 means that, since you need a premise A by which to determine the truth value of premise B (P3) (for example, "Visual perception is reliable" -> "Vi...

Syllogisms that do not commit logical fallacies restate P1 as: 3 = 2+1 And add P3: (a+b) + (c+d) = a+b+c+d And add P4: 1+1=2 And now it's consistent

it was intended to demonstrate P6

Incorrect. One would have to accept the premise "Visual input is reliable"

Yes. You'd have to accept premises such as "Humans are capable of storing memories", "Auditory input is reliable", etc. If Auditory input is not relia...

To choose to accept emperically accessible information rather than apriori "knowledge" is an apriori ought. It doesn't solve the issue, it's one of an...

falsification is much easier. Show me a premise that can be known to be true without referring to any other premises

how so?

How? By modus ponens if 2+2=7 and you replace the premises as I did accordingly in my last comment then it can be inferred that 3+3 does not equal 6 V...

restate P1 as: 3 = 2+1 And add P3: (a+b) + (c+d) = a+b+c+d And add P4: 1+1=2 And now it's consistent

I define arbitrary as: Accepted without logical proof in which case interests are arbitrary. I don't mean random or meaningless

besides I never said any premise can be used to validate any premise. I said that there is an infinity of premises capable of validating any one premi...

uhhhh. Care to elaborate? I thought you meant 2+2=7 as a premise so I used it as one

yeah you can P1: arithmetic is correct P2: 2+2=7 3+3 = (2+1) + (2+1) = 2+2+2= 7+2=9 Therefore the premise: 3+3=6 is false This is stupid math but it i...

Correcc My happiness has nothing to do with it. It IS possible to apply it even for self contradictions which is a problem. I would never do that beca...

uhhhh. Why did you just change a premise and both conclusions and then continued to argue as if you're dealing with the same argument? If there is an ...

I agree with everything you just said. The problem is this: Is a matter of extracting a should from an is. There is nothing in deductive/inductive/abd...

Yes. I'm not talking past you. I don't understand how your traffic light example is at all relevant. The guy is saying that our belief that following ...

I would still put both of your answers under pragmatic. Let's define pragmatic here just to make sure we're on the same page: Accepted for a reason th...

While not really nihilism, check out the pyrenean skeptic school. Ask a pyrenean skeptic "Is knowledge possible" and they'll say "I don't know". That ...

hold my beer. In order to go from: P1: I am doubting To: C: I am doubting I have to accept the premise: A=A (law of identity) There is no reason to ac...

The point of nihilism is to recognize the philosophical position and to recognize that ultimately, nothing matters and that it would only harm your ow...

You just agreed with P4 and P3 in that sentence. You have to accept the principle of sufficient reason as a premise in order to show that synthetic ap...

yay. Someone who gets it and doesn't retort with "Oh why don't you just kill yourself" :up:

OMG I swear. This post was originally titled "on nihilistic relativism" but I changed it. Nihilistic relativism IS the conclusion here unless you're w...

when I say meaningless I mean the last 10 seconds of this: https://youtu.be/E_qvy82U4RE I'm a nihilist. I believe nothing is intrinsically meaningful,...

That's what the argument intends to show

the thread is a poll between 3 beliefs about logics. That still does not tell me which belief about logics to pick. In fact it admits to multiple poss...

define: different logics. As far as I know what makes different logics is a different set of starting premises. Also this still doesn't address which ...

this only restates the problem. Now there is an infinite number of logics to determine the truth value of an infinite number of premises. You renamed ...

how so?