WJ

Koy!

...and take this however you will (hang tight Adrian). This is a philosophy forum. I don't perceive it as a general discussion forum designed to voice various opinions or views for the purposes of 'speaking out' as an activist. My question assumes that the basic grasp of the tools from philosophy which are needed to *consicely* reply to the *specific* question, are acknowledged and understood. I'm not looking for a long winded answer nor does the nature of my question require it. In fact, as you state, it by itself is quite consice. Therefore, it needs no other qualification. Neither have I opened a new thread with a proposition.

You've implied this on numerous occasions in previous discussions with me and other's and I'm taking the opportunuity to tell you that while you do not seem to have a basic grasp of certain philosophical tools, you erroneously attack others due to your own lack of knowledge in these same areas. Almost as if it is a compensation for this deficiency. While I certainly don't profess to know it all, I take exception to your opinion that I approach debates with a 'bait and switch' in mind.

The point is that if one wants to assert a claim they are knowledgable in something (as Adrian has), then they must carry the burden of understanding all the possible objections and arguments thereto. I've seen too many philosphers that speak way too much gibberish but really mean to say one simple thing which, of course, is what I'm asking.

To that end, I will only offer this help to you on the so-called philosophy behind the incompatibilty of Being and logic:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0385031386/reader/4/104-2295872-2383109#reader-link" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0385031386/reader/4/104-2295872-2383109#reader-link</a>

I'd suggest a read of the introduction, then you may ask some informed questions. In the interim, you may want to consider the book "philosophy made easy" as it is a very consice yet comprehensive overview of those tool(s). If you have it already, go to the last section. If you take this the wrong way, I'm not sure what else to tell you. But I'm not going to babysit you if want to play ball with the grown-ups. I suggest you learn the rules of the game.

I appologize for the interuption that was seemingly necessary.

Adrian, you still there?

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

So I take it it's back to being your usual, supercilious braying jackass.

Well, at least I tried.

WJ

...and what was it that you tried? Not to be koy(pardon the pun) but have you read any psychology books? You take things either way too seriously or, personally.

Lighten up koy! Life is good, damn good!

Koyaanisqatsi

Ok, little clubber!

Thanx....

Doubting Didymus

Suggestion for moderators: Can we create a 'Koyaanisqatsi VS WJ' forum, just for laughs? Gladiatorial battles between intellectual giants.

To WJ:
Simply because it is not two mutually incompatible properties existing simultaneously in the same thing at the same instant.

You seem to want logical 'integers' to be as clear as mathematics. Logic does not need whole integers to draw conclusions. Love, for example, does not need to be either 100% fully experienced true love or no love at all, before we can be logical about it. Love has degrees of intensity which do not need to be understood before we can think about them.

In regard to the laws of non contradiction, in this case only 'some love' (any amount), or 'no love at all' are contradictory. You cannot experience both some love and no love at the same instant. The appropriate mathematical paralell would be one + any amount can not equal both zero and something simultaneously, no matter what the value of the second integer is.

Bill

I would agree that this is probably the weakest point presented. It only works as an objection to bivalence if you make the propositions truly bivalent. EITHER the coat will survive to be cut in half OR the coat will wear out first and not be cut in half. This bivalent condition does not offer the option of having the coat be destroyed by fire.

And, if you read carefully, none of these offer the option of the Sun going nova, either (unless you wish to consider the Sun going nova to imply that the coat is "destroyed by fire").

The point I was trying to make is that, if the event that is being logically analyzed has not (yet) occurred, then there are almost always a plethora of available and yet unconsidered possibilities for preventing the entire range of considered options from occurring.

== Bill

Bill

Perhaps. But "pure logic" only applies to logically abstract objects that do not need to be perceived in order to be understood.

The reason that I say "perhaps" is because when making a prediction of future events using any logical process, is that not an instance of inductive reasoning? I do think it is, so to the extent that is true, I would be forced to agree with you.

But the implication is clear: these rules of logic cannot be validly used on non-abstract objects to make preductions about any future state of affairs.

== Bill

Adrian Selby

WJ I equate being with existence, as such I'm confused because my comment about my brother and my wife would of course imply either has being, or either exists, or I have being or I exist, but that doesn't seem to make any difference to whether or not it makes sense to accept there is a law of the excluded middle that seems almost innate to us, and is used in contexts where it is relevant.

Love is a complex irrational thing, how this implies being anymore than anything purely rational is beyond me.

Koyaanisqatsi

"VS" implies an opponent.

See above.

AtlanticCitySlave

You consider WJ an intellectual giant?