Philosophy Now Forum

If Christianity is treated as a coherent ideological system (which is questionnable as for everything called religions), it becomes evident that many of history’s most violent episodes, such as the genocide of Indigenous peoples in the Americas, colonial expansion, and the transatlantic slave trade—...

In each state, there is a legitimation, a framework within which violence is exercised, whether internal or external. No religion escapes this principle. Especially not Christianity, the Inquisition, the Holy War, the conquest of America. Even in its modern, secularized form, Christianity, the State...

What is impressive about this era, probably more than before, is how quickly stupidity and ignorance can spread. The cultural industry, through lackeys or idiots, manages to produce completely erroneous messages, which would require the least evolved generation of men to look into the issue for 2 mi...

You'll find it frequently and thoughout both Marx and Engels. Just Google "production" plus Marx/Engels quotations. Nothing the WEF says is clear. That's intentional. They don't want you to know what they're doing. Expect non-clarity. Expect to have to read carefully, and "between th...

The part is not identical to the whole. The subject is not identical to object. Human knowledge has its limits, limits of human kinds. Obviously... so I have no idea why you insisted on the unification when there's clearly a limiting function at play. Reality of “users”, “users” are part of reality...

At a certain stage, a choice must be made between the confusion of thought and reality on the one hand, and difference between them on the other Reality of “users”, “users” are part of reality. At what point do we come to recognize that having your cake; and eating it too is what you really want? U...

Utility functions are based on the users of reality, not on reality. Reality of “users”, “users” are part of reality. there is no such thing as absolute knowledge. knowledge is the work of concrete beings, not of a universal consciousness floating in the air. If there is no absolute knowledge, then...

Where did you find this definition in Marx's book? What is the book, page, chapter? You'll find it frequently and thoughout both Marx and Engels. Just Google "production" plus Marx/Engels quotations. What kind of redistribution is there in their manifesto? It's not very clear. Nothing the...

Yes, utility function based on the reality that encounter humain kind. Utility functions are based on the users of reality, not on reality. Reality of “users”, “users” are part of reality. there is no such thing as absolute knowledge. knowledge is the work of concrete beings, not of a universal con...

I was talking about Marx's definition of socialism, I didn't find it. "State ownership of the means of production." Stakeholder capitalism is not socialism by your definition. Yeah, it is. Think of what they mean by "stakeholder," and you'll see it. This is nothing more than a t...

The laws we use are made for the object we study. If it works, this not arbitrary. "Works" is just a weasel word absent of a utility function. But I agree with you, there are many problems with laws of identity. They are abstract over-simplifications. With zero grounding in reality, excep...

We need identity laws to construct knowledge about things. I read with Schrödinger's logic that it is not a logic without identity laws but with more restrictions on identity laws. Identity laws are just tools. I know that. That doesn't make the choice of laws any less arbitrary. Schrödinger logics...

You mean one which is not autoreferenced ? No, I mean one which is necesasrily true. If i produce a document where i say that, a=a, this is a valid document right ? Not necessarily. There exists a logic such that: For some x: x = x, for some y: MAYBE y = y; and for some z: z != z Equality/identity ...

To be completely rigorous, by contradiction we must conclut that there exist at least one document that is not infaillible. That is not a valid inference. To claim "at least one document that is not infallible" you must produce at least one such document. Not all balls in the bag are blue...

Imagine the opposite: There are no infallible documents. Fine. Now let's create a document that contains only the statement above. This document cannot be infallible. Therefore, the only statement that it contains must be false. Therefore, the claim that there are no infallible documents must be fa...