Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 05, 2025 3:04 pm

godelian wrote: ↑Thu Jun 05, 2025 2:55 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 05, 2025 2:53 pm

Nothing that anyone you've never met has done has helped you in any way? I mean, I assume I wouldn't be alive today at all if it weren't for some people I've never met personally doing some things that made my life possible. That seems like a given. Is that not so with you?

Good that it works for you. I certainly do not believe in it, but I guess that everybody is different.

I would think we are all here and where we are through many acts by people we don't know personally, including you. Some of them good and some bad. And likewise, we all have effects on others around us whom we don't know personally. Do you not think that is true? For example, maybe I am where I am in life because a psychiatrist found me having a psychosis and gave me medicine to stop it. Had that not happened, I might be institutionalized, locked away in a psych ward for life. But, the psychiatrist prescribed the medicine based on the work and research done by many people whom I have never met nor know the names of.

He was not doing that for free. Someone paid for it. It is not something for nothing.

godelian wrote: ↑Thu Jun 05, 2025 4:06 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 05, 2025 3:04 pm

godelian wrote: ↑Thu Jun 05, 2025 2:55 pm
Good that it works for you. I certainly do not believe in it, but I guess that everybody is different.

I would think we are all here and where we are through many acts by people we don't know personally, including you. Some of them good and some bad. And likewise, we all have effects on others around us whom we don't know personally. Do you not think that is true? For example, maybe I am where I am in life because a psychiatrist found me having a psychosis and gave me medicine to stop it. Had that not happened, I might be institutionalized, locked away in a psych ward for life. But, the psychiatrist prescribed the medicine based on the work and research done by many people whom I have never met nor know the names of.

He was not doing that for free. Someone paid for it. It is not something for nothing.

Probably no one was working for free, however, I paid only the psychiatrist. I didn't pay anything directly to the researchers who developed the medicines that helped me. It likely cost many millions over decades to bring those medicines to the market. That price was spread over insurance companies and taxes that allowed that research to happen at the expense of all of us. I didn't personally make that research happen because of being sick and paying a few hundred for health insurance per month. It happened in conjunction with everyone paying into the system to fund necessary things that not everyone always benefits from directly. But we all benefit from everything indirectly (as people around us affect us), as well as pay the indirect costs of vandalism or other maladies or misfortunes that also might occur. None of us are islands. The question is, do we take more than we give? I don't know the answer to that for anyone. I personally feel like I am more of a burden than a contributor in the final calculus. I certainly don't contribute as much as a janitor does or anyone else who is underpaid for a thankless but necessary job. So I suppose I must be on your list of despicable people. Sorry about that. But I assume your hatred of me isn't personal on your behalf.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 05, 2025 5:06 pm

godelian wrote: ↑Thu Jun 05, 2025 4:06 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 05, 2025 3:04 pm

I would think we are all here and where we are through many acts by people we don't know personally, including you. Some of them good and some bad. And likewise, we all have effects on others around us whom we don't know personally. Do you not think that is true? For example, maybe I am where I am in life because a psychiatrist found me having a psychosis and gave me medicine to stop it. Had that not happened, I might be institutionalized, locked away in a psych ward for life. But, the psychiatrist prescribed the medicine based on the work and research done by many people whom I have never met nor know the names of.

He was not doing that for free. Someone paid for it. It is not something for nothing.

Probably no one was working for free, however, I paid only the psychiatrist. I didn't pay anything directly to the researchers who developed the medicines that helped me. It likely cost many millions over decades to bring those medicines to the market. That price was spread over insurance companies and taxes that allowed that research to happen at the expense of all of us. I didn't personally make that research happen because of being sick and paying a few hundred for health insurance per month. It happened in conjunction with everyone paying into the system to fund necessary things that not everyone always benefits from directly. But we all benefit from everything indirectly (as people around us affect us), as well as pay the indirect costs of vandalism or other maladies or misfortunes that also might occur. None of us are islands. The question is, do we take more than we give? I don't know the answer to that for anyone. I personally feel like I am more of a burden than a contributor in the final calculus. I certainly don't contribute as much as a janitor does or anyone else who is underpaid for a thankless but necessary job. So I suppose I must be on your list of despicable people. Sorry about that. But I assume your hatred of me isn't personal on your behalf.

All these word salads are very interesting, but what's your point?

godelian wrote: ↑Thu Jun 05, 2025 5:17 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 05, 2025 5:06 pm

godelian wrote: ↑Thu Jun 05, 2025 4:06 pm
He was not doing that for free. Someone paid for it. It is not something for nothing.

Probably no one was working for free, however, I paid only the psychiatrist. I didn't pay anything directly to the researchers who developed the medicines that helped me. It likely cost many millions over decades to bring those medicines to the market. That price was spread over insurance companies and taxes that allowed that research to happen at the expense of all of us. I didn't personally make that research happen because of being sick and paying a few hundred for health insurance per month. It happened in conjunction with everyone paying into the system to fund necessary things that not everyone always benefits from directly. But we all benefit from everything indirectly (as people around us affect us), as well as pay the indirect costs of vandalism or other maladies or misfortunes that also might occur. None of us are islands. The question is, do we take more than we give? I don't know the answer to that for anyone. I personally feel like I am more of a burden than a contributor in the final calculus. I certainly don't contribute as much as a janitor does or anyone else who is underpaid for a thankless but necessary job. So I suppose I must be on your list of despicable people. Sorry about that. But I assume your hatred of me isn't personal on your behalf.

All these word salads are very interesting, but what's your point?

Don't worry, you'll figure the point out someday or you won't. Maybe let it sink in a little. I don't write in simple lines of computer code so it might be more challenging for you to interpret my writing.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 05, 2025 5:44 pm Don't worry, you'll figure the point out someday or you won't. Maybe let it sink in a little. I don't write in simple lines of computer code so it might be more challenging for you to interpret my writing.

If you managed to write computer code that successfully compiles and successfully executes, you would at least prove that what you say is consistent. That is why a correctly compiling and executing program is superior to a word salad. We generally respect things that are difficult to do, while we look down on things that are easy to do. It is the very fact that not everybody can do it, that makes it valuable. So, yes, feel free to rise to the challenge and write the code instead of relying on a facile word salad. Try to do something that is difficult, for a change.

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 2:25 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 05, 2025 5:44 pm Don't worry, you'll figure the point out someday or you won't. Maybe let it sink in a little. I don't write in simple lines of computer code so it might be more challenging for you to interpret my writing.

If you managed to write computer code that successfully compiles and successfully executes, you would at least prove that what you say is consistent. That is why a correctly compiling and executing program is superior to a word salad. We generally respect things that are difficult to do, while we look down on things that are easy to do. It is the very fact that not everybody can do it, that makes it valuable. So, yes, feel free to rise to the challenge and write the code instead of relying on a facile word salad. Try to do something that is difficult, for a change.

Your posts, like the one above, are not much different. Just more arrogant. Being a computer programmer doesn't make one superior to others.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 2:56 am Your posts, like the one above, are not much different. Just more arrogant. Being a computer programmer doesn't make one superior to others.

I am not interested in who exactly says something or what his credentials would be. I am only interested in how he justifies it.

PA ⊢ 1+1=2

The expression above is true, irrespective of who exactly says it. It defeats every possible word salad. What you say, needs to be true, even if a 3-year old said it.

I do not necessarily respect a programmer more than anybody else, but I certainly respect a correctly-executing program a lot more than a liberal-arts word salad.

While I do not want to speculate whether the one person is superior to the other, I can still confirm that the one claim can definitely be superior to the other claim, simply because its justification is superior. A mere word salad is never a legitimate justification.

Philosophy itself is not deductive. It is inductive about the world of ideas. There is nothing wrong with that.

However, when philosophy tries to be inductive about the physical universe, it competes with science and observational studies, which are fields of which the justification is superior in that context.

Philosophy is also not an alternative to deductive moral systems. Morality is simply not inductive.

There are limits to what you can do with philosophy, i.e. induction on the world of abstractions. The tool has its applications, but is just like every other tool, only effective in its context.

Mere world salads are bad philosophy. Not just bad morality. Not just bad science. They are universally worthless.

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 3:29 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 2:56 am Your posts, like the one above, are not much different. Just more arrogant. Being a computer programmer doesn't make one superior to others.

I am not interested in who exactly says something or what his credentials would be. I am only interested in how he justifies it.

PA ⊢ 1+1=2

The expression above is true, irrespective of who exactly says it. It defeats every possible word salad. What you say, needs to be true, even if a 3-year old said it.

I do not necessarily respect a programmer more than anybody else, but I certainly respect a correctly-executing program a lot more than a liberal-arts word salad.

While I do not want to speculate whether the one person is superior to the other, I can still confirm that the one claim can definitely be superior to the other claim, simply because its justification is superior. A mere word salad is never a legitimate justification.

Philosophy itself is not deductive. It is inductive about the world of ideas. There is nothing wrong with that.

However, when philosophy tries to be inductive about the physical universe, it competes with science and observational studies, which are fields of which the justification is superior in that context.

Philosophy is also not an alternative to deductive moral systems. Morality is simply not inductive.

There are limits to what you can do with philosophy, i.e. induction on the world of abstractions. The tool has its applications, but is just like every other tool, only effective in its context.

Mere world salads are bad philosophy. Not just bad morality. Not just bad science. They are universally worthless.

No one disagrees that 1+1=2. You seem to think that despising people for being "worthless" is perfectly fine. I disagree. Can you deductively show me that you are right and I am wrong about that?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 4:02 am No one disagrees that 1+1=2. You seem to think that despising people for being "worthless" is perfectly fine. I disagree. Can you deductively show me that you are right and I am wrong about that?

Yes, of course.

Morality is deductive. Hence, you must first choose the system of basic rules that you want to deduct the moral rulings from.

Note that this choice is essentially "arbitrary". This is always the case in the context of deduction.

Example:

Islam ⊢ "We ought to despise the unbelievers"

Justification.

Quran 3:28. Let not the believers take disbelievers as allies aside from the believers. But whoever does that, then he did not have from God in anything, except that you beware from them in precaution. And God warns you of Himself, and to God is the destination.

Quran 5:51. 0 those who believe, do not take Jews or Christians as friends for they are friends among themselves. And whoever has friendship with them, he is one of them.

These verses give me a blanket permission to despise unbelievers for their deviant views on morality. Furthermore, why would I not do it? Especially, given the fact that I even enjoy doing it. You see, expressing contempt is subject to lots of regulations, quite similar to using violence. So, whenever the rules give you permission to express contempt, you should obviously jump on the opportunity to do so!

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 4:53 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 4:02 am No one disagrees that 1+1=2. You seem to think that despising people for being "worthless" is perfectly fine. I disagree. Can you deductively show me that you are right and I am wrong about that?

Yes, of course.

Morality is deductive. Hence, you must first choose the system of basic rules that you want to deduct the moral rulings from.

Note that this choice is essentially "arbitrary". This is always the case in the context of deduction.

Example:

Islam ⊢ "We ought to despise the unbelievers"

Justification.

Quran 3:28. Let not the believers take disbelievers as allies aside from the believers. But whoever does that, then he did not have from God in anything, except that you beware from them in precaution. And God warns you of Himself, and to God is the destination.

Quran 5:51. 0 those who believe, do not take Jews or Christians as friends for they are friends among themselves. And whoever has friendship with them, he is one of them.

These verses give me a blanket permission to despise unbelievers..

You really are a disgusting specimen - a perfect example of what is wrong with permitting Islam to flourish in the West.

Unfortunately your quotes are from a liar out for profit (MorHamMad) that had to negate the prior religions to justify his own BULLSHIT.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 5:44 am You really are a disgusting specimen

According to the deductive rules mentioned, it is you the disgusting specimen:

Islam ⊢ you are a disgusting specimen

According to which deductive rules, that you do not mention, would I be a disgusting specimen?

Morality is deductive. Hence, you must mention the deductive context. You don't do that. Therefore, your conclusion must be rejected.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 5:44 am a perfect example of what is wrong with permitting Islam to flourish in the West.

An abstraction such as Islam is not territorial. It does not live in the physical universe. It lives in the abstract Platonic universe. Hence, it is not part of the West or the non-West.

Secondly, territorial authorities have no jurisdiction whatsoever over the abstract Platonic world. It's the same like saying that the government should ban Bitcoin. They have no authority over that. Governments still need to come to grips with the fact that they have no authority over digital money, but they gradually do. They don't have authority over the weather either. You are simply suffering from a King Canute delusion.

Thirdly, we have historically done all of that already.

When the abstract ideas of the reformation hit the Burgundian Netherlands, the Catholic rulers thought that they were going to stamp it out. During the 80-years War, the Dutch rebellion killed hundreds of thousands of Spanish soldiers and completely bankrupted the Spanish monarchy at least four times.

The Spanish king Philip II said that he would rather lose his lands than to rule over heretics. Well, in 1648, his successor lost his lands.

Seriously, who won the 80-years War? The Spanish Catholic kings or the Dutch rebels?

Furthermore, the Dutch protestant rebellion flourished exactly because the Catholic rulers tried to stamp it out. That is why I am actually in favor of attempting to repress Islam in the West. It is so obvious that it can only benefit Islam.

Last but not least, given the continuous collapse in birth rate, the West does not even have 80 years.

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 6:14 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 5:44 am You really are a disgusting specimen

According to the deductive rules mentioned, it is you the disgusting specimen:

Islam ⊢ you are a disgusting specimen

According to which deductive rules, that you do not mention, would I be a disgusting specimen?

Morality is deductive. Hence, you must mention the deductive context. You don't do that. Therefore, your conclusion must be rejected.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 5:44 am a perfect example of what is wrong with permitting Islam to flourish in the West.

1: An abstraction such as Islam is not territorial. It does not live in the physical universe. It lives in the abstract Platonic universe. Hence, it is not part of the West or the non-West.

Secondly, territorial authorities have no jurisdiction whatsoever over the abstract Platonic world. It's the same like saying that the government should ban Bitcoin. They have no authority over that. Governments still need to come to grips with the fact that they have no authority over digital money, but they gradually do. They don't have authority over the weather either. You are simply suffering from a King Canute delusion.

Thirdly, we have historically done all of that already.

When the abstract ideas of the reformation hit the Burgundian Netherlands, the Catholic rulers thought that they were going to stamp it out. During the 80-years War, the Dutch rebellion killed hundreds of thousands of Spanish soldiers and completely bankrupted the Spanish monarchy at least four times.

The Spanish king Philip II said that he would rather lose his lands than to rule over heretics. Well, in 1648, his successor lost his lands.

Seriously, who won the 80-years War? The Spanish Catholic kings or the Dutch rebels?

Furthermore, the Dutch protestant rebellion flourished exactly because the Catholic rulers tried to stamp it out. 1: That is why I am actually in favor of attempting to repress Islam in the West. It is so obvious that it can only benefit Islam.

1: Just thought I'd highlight an example of your brain functioning irrationally.


What do you think of this:

After making my post to you, I returned to my couch and contemplated the disgusting tenets of Islam made up by Mor Ham Mad and since I have ongoing INTERACTION with GOD—i decided to ask IT a question.

..I considered that Muzzlems that have such disdain for non-believers, as instructed by the lies purported to be from GOD contained within the Quran - I asked GOD whether Muzzlems often get reincarnated as the BEAST (*666) ya know, Mor Ham Mad like..

I got tapped heavily on my RIGHT knee - as is, yes that is RIGHT - until I stated "enough" - the tapping then stopped.

It's interesting how much piss take the GOD of ALL REAL-IT-Y has embedded within the English language regarding ISLAM:

Muzzle Em
Islame
Mor Ham Mad

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 6:43 am ..I considered that Muzzlems that have such disdain for non-believers, as instructed by the lies purported to be from GOD contained within the Quran

Unlike the Spanish Catholic monarchs during their 80-years long failed attempt at stamping out the Dutch protestant rebellion, the West does not even have 80 years to try and fail.

Concerning the disdain for unbelievers, yes, I occasionally make use of the Islamic permission to despise them.

You see, utilitarianism is inductive. It is not deductive. Therefore, it is not acceptable as a moral system. But then again, I often respect alternative moral systems if they are deductive, consistent, and properly deductively-closed.

As you can imagine, I will never show any respect for inductive morality. I simply despise it. At the philosophical level, however, I actually like discussing this.

Still, whenever someone tries to convince me on moral grounds by using utilitarian arguments, I will happily point out that the Islamic deductive rules give me full permission to despise him.

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 7:12 am Concerning the disdain for unbelievers, yes, I occasionally make use of the Islamic permission to despise them.

You see, utilitarianism is inductive. It is not deductive. Therefore, it is not acceptable as a moral system.

Islam has little to offer re 'moral system'. Per inductive and not deductive smacks purely of non requirement for reasoning/thinking - inductive is lazy.


Answer this: What is the ultimate purpose of a human mind?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 8:08 am Islam has little to offer re 'moral system'.

Islam is consistent and deductively-closed. Hence, it certainly satisfies the basic requirements that one should expect from a moral system. It is definitely one of the better alternatives.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 8:08 am Answer this: What is the ultimate purpose of a human mind?

I probably do not have a specific answer to that question. I would not know where to find it, really. Concerning why humanity exists, the Quran says the following:

ChatGPT: In Islam, why did Allah create mankind?

In Islam, Allah created mankind with a clear purpose: to worship Him. This purpose is directly stated in the Qur'an:

"And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me."
— Qur’an, Surah Adh-Dhariyat (51:56)