Amalac

They don't assert the Law of Contradiction explicitly, but they must assume that it is certain implicitly, otherwise it is not even possible to talk m...

I don't think so, here he says: His “only” implies that he holds that the belief in the Law of Contradiction is both about thoughts and about things. ...

Well yes, since all proofs assume the Law, it itself cannot be proven, as Aristotle pointed out. But it's just blindingly obvious, is it not? I mean, ...

There is an argument, it's just brief: 1. Either the Law of Contradiction states merely what we must believe, and what we can't believe, or it also as...

But doesn't that mean that the Law of Contradiction reflects some kind of a priori, given structure of the world, such that the world must always foll...

I think you might like this short story of Voltaire's (The Story of the Good Brahmin): https://youtu.be/UNB5veo7TUM (I'm also using this chance to get...

No, you destroy the potential baby (the fetus) (I'm thinking about a 1 year old as an example of a baby, but perhaps you can tell me which age you are...

But I think 180's point with that analogy is that an actual tree is not the same as a potential tree, and so for instance we would not say that cleans...

Ok then, do you accept that the Law of Contradiction is necessarily true? For there sake of this discussion, I'll maintain that it is. If so, you must...

Ok, so we more or less agree then. But my point was that a statement such as “It is not the case that the sun both was and was not a star, at the same...

Is logic constructed by fiat? Possible worlds depend upon what is logically possible/ impossible (that's how they are defined), and it seems we don't ...

I don't think so, they define God as having certain properties (perfections or “great making properties”) first, and then through analysis of the conc...

Actually, I think they claim that follows from the definition of God, using corollary B or corollary 5. So it's not a premise, but rather something th...

Hmm, but isn't that what the advocates of the modal ontological argument would reject? They would not be convinced with just “of course that individua...

You mean the corollary of axiom B? It does not apply to an individual, but it could apply to a proposition which has an individual as its subject, tha...

Well, I only quoted your first question, and was waiting for somebody else to answer the second one. As to that second question: Well, that question j...

The numbers of likes the user's posts have, I think.

That's a great book indeed. I would also recommend: Aristotle: Nichomachean Ethics. Sextus: Against the Ethicists. Hume: An Enquiry Concerning the Pri...

In S5 it seems one can, as I explained to you before. This video is helpful, though a little long (you can skip to 10:50 if you want the short version...

First of all, apologies for quoting philosophers here (since you said to Wayfarer that you haven't the time to read too much) but I thought I should g...

The actual world is one among the possible worlds (this again follows in some systems of modal logic). So if one admits that god exists in all possibl...

Well, take the modal ontological argument for instance, they argue: “if God exists necessarily in some possible world, then God exists necessarily in ...

I suppose a believer would retort that God exists in all possible worlds (an advocate of the ontological argument/ modal ontological argument for exam...

I think both positions are not mutually exclusive. Atheism is a negative answer to the question: “Do you believe in God?” whereas agnosticism is a neg...

“Socrates died in 399 BC” has a clear meaning for me, “dying” is something that happened to Socrates, “died” means “ceased to be alive/ ceased to have...

Of course, that's part of Sextus' point. But what about the exact moment in which he died? Was he alive then or not? Because “once they die, they are ...

So you'd say he died when he was alive? What's your response to Sextus then?: “But when he was living he did not die, since he would have been both li...

I'm afraid what you said there at the end makes no grammatical sense: “Socrates died when he was die” makes no sense, or “Socrates died when he was to...

So you are saying, it seems, that there was no instant of time such that in exactly the next instant, Socrates went from being alive to not being aliv...

Sextus says: assuming Socrates died when he was dead, then that necessarily implies that he died twice (that is to say: he couldn't have just died onc...

If Socrates was dead when he died, then, Sextus argues, that must mean he died before (before dying) since otherwise he would not be dead when he died...

Edit: sorry, I misunderstood part of what you were saying here, so here’s my updated (edited) reply: I thought “living” and “alive” were synonyms: a l...

But Sextus’ argument goes like this: 1. If Socrates died, then either Socrates died when he was alive or when he was not alive (dead). (It must be the...

Hi there. I started it, you just have to click on “new discussion” if you want to start your own. If you want to respond to a post, you have to click ...

It is somewhat similar to Zeno's paradox of the arrow, yes. If we use that other paradox as an analogy, we could say that Socrates didn't die while he...

That's just a figure of speech, obviously. Did I ever say such a thing? Something can't end before starting (if it started), obviously. A universe wit...

If Dillahunty did say that (don't know if he did, and don't have time to watch the video), then I do think he made a pretty bad mistake. Bertrand Russ...

Ok, so let's suppose all that Kant/Popper meant when saying that an infinite amount of time passed/elapsed up to the “now” was to say that it is the c...

And why would there being infinitely many finite intervals of time be impossible given a universe with no beginning in time/ infinite past, exactly? L...

Well, my view is not that we don't need to be bothered about how we got to the present, but rather that we should not (and need not) say things like “...

Well, the first time I thought the “up to the present” part went without saying, but seeing how that lead to misunderstandings, you are right that I s...

I think this is correct, basically one has to respect (to some extent at least) the rules of language implicit in each particular form of life, to avo...

Then what did you mean when you said “there is no present”? The hypotetical I'm refering to is “If the universe has an infinite past, then an infinite...

My view on definitions is that they should be stipulative: First one determines the goals that one wants to achieve by the definition, and then one ch...

Actually, never mind: going back to that post you're refering to, what I said was that he maintained that if the past were infinite then that implies ...

Hmm, ok. Ok, that makes sense (I guess?) Well that's what I meant, it seems I expressed myself poorly (english is not my mother tongue). If the past i...

I think this passage of his Enquiry does seem to show that Hume did not hold an externalist conception of empirical knowledge: By the same token, Hume...

If punishing an evil person is pointless, then choosing not to punish them is just as pointless. If praising someone who is good is pointless, not pra...

The problem of induction goes even further actually: although in the past the laws of physics have not changed, that doesn't justifiy the expectation ...

I see, that does make sense I guess.