Philosophy Now Forum

>If your philosophical views are credible you should be world famous within the philosophical communities by now and would have presented many papers in various philosophical journals.

That is why credibility is not valid criteria for anything, it's argumentum ad populum. Also, Dunning-Kreuger. Also, it's quite easy to be dead before your work is appreciated. I'm vaguely sure that's happened before.

>On the other hand, if you are [b]not[/b] a famous and well-known philosophers who do not stand on the shoulders of any giant philosopher or philosophical traditions, then your personal philosophical views are of low or no credibility.
It would appear this point is the truth for you. [/list]

Amount of acceptance by others (credibility) is utterly disconnected from the practical or logical worth of an idea. And as for letting academic philosophers dictate what is considered good philosophy, the system that selected them is inadequate.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:07 am This is the first time I read of the above.
What you claimed above is related to mathematical proofs.

Of course. Because that's the only FSK in which the notion of "proof" is coherently defined.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:07 am BUT the "impossibility" I mentioned is always qualified as 'empirically' and reality. So my claim is confined to the empirical & reality framework and system.
God is an Impossibility to be empirically and philosophically real.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

So is mine. In what empirical FSK do you qualify your epistemic criteria for "impossibility" ?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:07 am In this case it is also a logical fallacy of equivocation if based on non-empirical elements.
Logically one cannot conflate what is empirical with something that is non-empirical.

Everything is empirical. Including logic.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:07 am Caveat: there is no absolute certainty, thus I am not claiming 100% absolute certainty.
What I claimed is a qualified certainty of impossibility based on the above context.

The only impossibilities are logical impossibilities. Empiricism is open-ended.

If the "impossible" turns out to be possible, then logic is wrong.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:24 am
If you are not relying on any philosophers or philosophical traditions

You'd say that "relying on any philosophers or philosophical traditions" amounts to the same thing as being a follower of particular philosophers?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 12:07 pm You'd say that "relying on any philosophers or philosophical traditions" amounts to the same thing as being a follower of particular philosophers?

What do you mean by "same" and "different"?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 12:07 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:24 am
If you are not relying on any philosophers or philosophical traditions

You'd say that "relying on any philosophers or philosophical traditions" amounts to the same thing as being a follower of particular philosophers?

I am not going to nitpick on the above.

My question,
Btw, which are the notable philosophers you are a 50% fan/follower of?

Which notable philosophers which you are not a fan of at all, but at times rely on their philosophies to support your argument.

What is your philosophical stance with reference to reality?
Is reality to you mind-independent, mind-codependent or minds-co-entanglement,
if not, what is your stance on reality?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 11:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:07 am This is the first time I read of the above.
What you claimed above is related to mathematical proofs.

Of course. Because that's the only FSK in which the notion of "proof" is coherently defined.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:07 am BUT the "impossibility" I mentioned is always qualified as 'empirically' and reality. So my claim is confined to the empirical & reality framework and system.
God is an Impossibility to be empirically and philosophically real.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

So is mine. In what empirical FSK do you qualify your epistemic criteria for "impossibility" ?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:07 am In this case it is also a logical fallacy of equivocation if based on non-empirical elements.
Logically one cannot conflate what is empirical with something that is non-empirical.

Everything is empirical. Including logic.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 4:07 am Caveat: there is no absolute certainty, thus I am not claiming 100% absolute certainty.
What I claimed is a qualified certainty of impossibility based on the above context.

The only impossibilities are logical impossibilities. Empiricism is open-ended.

If the "impossible" turns out to be possible, then logic is wrong.

Theists MUST claim with absolute CERTAINTY [100%] their God is of ABSOLUTELY ABSOLUTE PERFECTION, i.e. an entity than which no greater can be conceived.

100% CERTAINTY & ABSOLUTE PERFECTION is an impossibility within an empirical FSK.

The most an empirical FSK can claim is its conclusions are merely polished conjectures which cannot be of absolute perfection nor 100% certainty.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:13 am Theists MUST claim with absolute CERTAINTY [100%] their God is of ABSOLUTELY ABSOLUTE PERFECTION, i.e. an entity than which no greater can be conceived.

100% CERTAINTY & ABSOLUTE PERFECTION is an impossibility within an empirical FSK.

The most an empirical FSK can claim is its conclusions are merely polished conjectures which cannot be of absolute perfection nor 100% certainty.

Do you understand why the part in red is precisely what allows for a proof (logical, NOT empirical) of God?

God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.

This is proof-by-contradiction. It's what scientists call "falsification". Every idea becomes greater through reification.

That you cannot CONCEIVE of anything greater than your conception is simply a limit of your conception. Your human limits impose no limit on reality in any way, form, or shape.

The limits of your language ARE the limits if your conception.

100% certainty and absolutes are EPISTEMIC impossibilities, not ontological impossibilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:31 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:13 am Theists MUST claim with absolute CERTAINTY [100%] their God is of ABSOLUTELY ABSOLUTE PERFECTION, i.e. an entity than which no greater can be conceived.

100% CERTAINTY & ABSOLUTE PERFECTION is an impossibility within an empirical FSK.

The most an empirical FSK can claim is its conclusions are merely polished conjectures which cannot be of absolute perfection nor 100% certainty.

Do you understand why the part in red is precisely what allows for a proof (logical, NOT empirical) of God?

God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.

This is proof-by-contradiction. It's what scientists call "falsification". Every idea becomes greater through reification.

That you cannot CONCEIVE of anything greater than your conception is simply a limit of your conception. Your human limits impose no limit on reality in any way, form, or shape.

The limits of your language ARE the limits if your conception.

100% certainty and absolutes are EPISTEMIC impossibilities, not ontological impossibilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof

You totally forget about the Absolutely-Absolute-Perfection that is claimed for that entity than which no greater can be conceived [thought of] or believed.

Btw, the idea of God is from pure understanding [transcendent] and not from the imagination of sensibility [empirical].

How can such an entity be possible within the empirical FSK?
note I qualified 'empirical FSK'.

Note this;
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:49 am You totally forget about the Absolutely-Absolute-Perfection that is claimed for that entity than which no greater can be conceived [thought of] or believed.

I am not forgetting about it am pointing straight at the misconception.

ANY conception of the Absolutely-Absolute-Perfection thought of believed, can be falsified by experience!

Your knowledge is limited. Your imagination/conception is limited by your knowledge.

Just because you can't IMAGINE something greater, it doesn't prevent something greater from existing.
The limits of your knowledge/imagination impose no limits on existence.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:49 am Btw, the idea of God is from pure understanding [transcendent] and not from the imagination of sensibility [empirical].

Your transcendent ideas are limited by your knowledge and imagination!

A greater transcendence than your transcendence produces a greater understanding.

The notion of "greatest" anything is incoherent. Logically and mathematically.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:49 am How can such an entity be possible within the empirical FSK?
note I qualified 'empirical FSK'.

We don't know! Just because we don't know how it doesn't mean it's impossible.

It just means we don't know how it might be possible. It's only impossible WITHIN the FSK.

If it turns out to be possible, we'll have to revise the FSK.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 7:18 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:49 am You totally forget about the Absolutely-Absolute-Perfection that is claimed for that entity than which no greater can be conceived [thought of] or believed.

I am not forgetting about it am pointing straight at the misconception.

ANY conception of the Absolutely-Absolute-Perfection thought of believed, can be falsified by experience!

Your knowledge is limited. Your imagination/conception is limited by your knowledge.

Just because you can't IMAGINE something greater, it doesn't prevent something greater from existing.
The limits of your knowledge/imagination impose no limits on existence.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:49 am Btw, the idea of God is from pure understanding [transcendent] and not from the imagination of sensibility [empirical].

Your transcendent ideas are limited by your knowledge and imagination!

A greater transcendence than your transcendence produces a greater understanding.

The notion of "greatest" anything is incoherent. Logically and mathematically.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:49 am How can such an entity be possible within the empirical FSK?
note I qualified 'empirical FSK'.

We don't know! Just because we don't know how it doesn't mean it's impossible.

It just means we don't know how it might be possible. It's only impossible WITHIN the FSK.

If it turns out to be possible, we'll have to revise the FSK.

This!

>We don't know! Just because we don't know how it doesn't mean it's impossible.

>It just means we don't know how it might be possible. It's only impossible WITHIN the FSK.

>If it turns out to be possible, we'll have to revise the FSK.

...point being, if we cannot logically or empirically verify it now there's no reason to consider it now. Any idea that is indistinguishable from fiction (not supported by replicably evidence) cannot be treated epistemologically. It cannot be counted as real for any intent or purpose. Reality must be verified to count as reality to us.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:06 am My question,
Btw, which are the notable philosophers you are a 50% fan/follower of?

I didn't say that I'm "50% a fan/follower" of anyone. What I said is that even for the philosophers that I'm a fan of, I tend to disagree with them at least 50% of the time.

Also:

Which notable philosophers which you are not a fan of at all, but at times rely on their philosophies to support your argument.

I don't ever rely on someone else's comments to support any argument. No argument would have more weight simply because someone else argued it.

At any rate, here are some of my favorite philosophers--this is not at all an exhaustive list; it's just a sampling of some of my favorites (and they're just in alphabetical order (by first letter)). I'm not a fan of everyone here for the same reasons (for example, I think that Aristotle was a horrible writer, but I admire his approach--his "program" for what he felt philosophy should be doing), but there's something about all of them that I'm a fan of:

Achille Varzi, AJ Ayer, Annette Baier, Aristotle, Augustine, Bertrand Russell, Colin McGinn, David Hume, Donald Davidson, Ernst Mach, G.E. Moore, George Santayana, Hans Reichenbach, John Searle, John Stuart Mill, Karl Popper, Kit Fine, Marjorie Grene, Michael Martin, Michel Foucault, Ned Block, Paul Feyerabend, Plato (and Socrates via him), Richard Rorty, Robert Nozick, Rudolf Carnap, Susan Haack, Thomas Aquinas, WVO Quine

What is your philosophical stance with reference to reality?

We went over this already. I'm a realist, and re phil of perception, I'm a naive realist. I'm basically a "naturalist," and I'm a physicalist and a nominalist.

Is reality to you mind-independent, mind-codependent or minds-co-entanglement,
if not, what is your stance on reality?

Traditionally, "real" refers to "mind-independent." We don't have to use it that way (and of course it's very common in the modern era to use the term more broadly than this), but it's worth clarifying that on some readings, asking if reality is mind-independent is redundant. Most of the world is mind-independent, but there are minds, and obviously we're often very concerned with (sometimes obsessed with) them. Plenty of things that we talk about are mental phenomena-only, but not everything is mental phenomena-only. And of course, our beliefs, ideas, desires, etc. wind up having an impact on the mind-independent world. But most of what exists is mind-independent and we've had no impact on most of it.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 2:07 pm ...point being, if we cannot logically or empirically verify it now there's no reason to consider it now.
Any idea that is indistinguishable from fiction (not supported by replicably evidence) cannot be treated epistemologically.

It can and I am treating it epistemologically. I know that I cannot eliminate the possibility.

And so I don't.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 2:07 pm It cannot be counted as real for any intent or purpose. Reality must be verified to count as reality to us.

Oh reallllly?

Tell me how you've verified reality? What or where is it? Show it to me.

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=496034 time=1613229004 user_id=12582]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=495975 time=1613189163 user_id=7896]
My question,
Btw, which are the notable philosophers you are a 50% fan/follower of?
[/quote]
I didn't say that I'm "50% a fan/follower" of anyone. What I said is that even for the philosophers that I'm a fan of, I tend to disagree with them [i]at least 50% of the time.[/i]

Also:

[quote]
Which notable philosophers which you are not a fan of at all, but at times rely on their philosophies to support your argument.[/quote]

I don't [i]ever[/i] rely on someone else's comments to support any argument. No argument would have more weight simply because someone else argued it.

At any rate, here are some of my favorite philosophers--this is not at all an exhaustive list; it's just a sampling of some of my favorites (and they're just in alphabetical order (by first letter)). I'm not a fan of everyone here for the same reasons (for example, I think that Aristotle was a horrible writer, but I admire his approach--his "program" for what he felt philosophy should be doing), but there's something about all of them that I'm a fan of:

Achille Varzi, AJ Ayer, Annette Baier, Aristotle, Augustine, Bertrand Russell, Colin McGinn, David Hume, Donald Davidson, Ernst Mach, G.E. Moore, George Santayana, Hans Reichenbach, John Searle, John Stuart Mill, Karl Popper, Kit Fine, Marjorie Grene, Michael Martin, Michel Foucault, Ned Block, Paul Feyerabend, Plato (and Socrates via him), Richard Rorty, Robert Nozick, Rudolf Carnap, Susan Haack, Thomas Aquinas, WVO Quine

[quote]
What is your philosophical stance with reference to reality?[/quote]

We went over this already. I'm a realist, and re phil of perception, I'm a naive realist. I'm basically a "naturalist," and I'm a physicalist and a nominalist.

[quote]
Is reality to you mind-independent, mind-codependent or minds-co-entanglement,
if not, what is your stance on reality?
[/quote]

Traditionally, "real" [i]refers to[/i] "mind-independent." We don't have to use it that way (and of course it's very common in the modern era to use the term more broadly than this), but it's worth clarifying that on some readings, asking if reality is mind-independent is redundant. Most of the world is mind-independent, but there are minds, and obviously we're often very concerned with (sometimes obsessed with) them. Plenty of things that we talk about are mental phenomena-only, but not everything is mental phenomena-only. And of course, our beliefs, ideas, desires, etc. wind up having an impact on the mind-independent world. But most of what exists is mind-independent and we've had no impact on most of it.
[/quote]

Can we please talk about the ideas and not the people? (ffs)

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 7:18 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:49 am You totally forget about the Absolutely-Absolute-Perfection that is claimed for that entity than which no greater can be conceived [thought of] or believed.

I am not forgetting about it am pointing straight at the misconception.

ANY conception of the Absolutely-Absolute-Perfection thought of believed, can be falsified by experience!

Your knowledge is limited. Your imagination/conception is limited by your knowledge.

Just because you can't IMAGINE something greater, it doesn't prevent something greater from existing.
The limits of your knowledge/imagination impose no limits on existence.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:49 am Btw, the idea of God is from pure understanding [transcendent] and not from the imagination of sensibility [empirical].

Your transcendent ideas are limited by your knowledge and imagination!

A greater transcendence than your transcendence produces a greater understanding.

The notion of "greatest" anything is incoherent. Logically and mathematically.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:49 am How can such an entity be possible within the empirical FSK?
note I qualified 'empirical FSK'.

We don't know! Just because we don't know how it doesn't mean it's impossible.

It just means we don't know how it might be possible. It's only impossible WITHIN the FSK.

If it turns out to be possible, we'll have to revise the FSK.

The maxim is 'There is no Absolute Certainty'
thus, "whatever is impossible" cannot be 100% absolute certain,
so, 'whatever is impossible' can be possible,
but that is only in theory.

For you to bank on the above possible-impossibility is merely to fall into a loop, i.e. whatever you claim 'impossibility is possible' is not of absolute certainty, thus can be wrong and so onto an infinite regress.
Philosophically but we must be realistic.

We have discussed the most realistic and credible knowledge we have on hand is from the scientific FSK which is based on the empirical and the philosophical.
The Scientific FSK is the Most Credible
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

Thus my claim, God is impossible to be real within the most realistic and credible FSR/FSK, i.e. the scientific FSR/FSK.