Things which are non-logical or illogical are supposed to make literally no sense. We're talking about arguments here, and the basic case is the direct contradiction (P and not-P). Some people have difficulty in making the logic of their positions explicit, even though it's already there in their ideas.

It's like a safety blanket, in a good way - it's a way to check that the place you're trying to reach is adequately justified by the steps you took to get there. Having logical arguments is only half the work, though - we also have to determine the truth-value of each component of an argument. Logic is basically about validity and truth, so a properly logical argument takes some set of truths and extracts from them some new truth which follows from them - that is to say that, if the premises are true and the structure valid, then the conclusion is necessarily true and cannot be any other way.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>93949
Essentially my point here is that logic is uncontroversial, and the real bone of contention is in how to tell if something is true or not in the first place, and which kinds of claims are capable of being determined true or false.

>>93949 What he said.

Usually, when people come up with bad philosophy it's because they're using bad logic. Proper logic makes it easier to realize when a view is wrong, either because it is self-refuting or it is inconsistent with an externally verified fact.

>>93949
>>93954
These. It's important to know logical fallacies when debating. Try learning some.

That's what they are, and as soon as they go beyond theory they evolve into religions. Still, beats coming up with shit on your own.

So no philosophy has ever contained something that is actually true, even by coincidence? I call bullshit. And what is wrong with an opinion if it turns out to be correct? OP has set the stage for a massive clusterfuck centring on the ambiguity of the word 'opinion', and the negative connotations one of its meanings carries. Fuck you man.

>>93974
But thanks to philosophy how can we know it is actually truth?

OP is just stuck reading some shit he doesn't understand yet. we all have that shit dude just smoke more.

Ever hear of Pragmatism, OP?

>>93964

I could go into further length, but before I do I believe I'm going to need some more information on what basis exactly you have for your assumptions of objective morality, and especially if such a thing exists (which as I've stated before, it doesn't by definition. My position wasn't 'morality is subjective, therefore it's subjective', but rather 'morality is subjective, therefore it isn't objective'), what such a thing would even entail (since apparently anyone can just ignore it. Say something is objectively "wrong" or "evil", or something is "right" or "good". What exactly does that entail, exactly, that would somehow make it different than simple cause and effect?)

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>93967
Arguing with the wrong anonymous, anonymous. However,

>Again: You say murder is objectively immoral. I say murder is objectively moral. What makes one of us "correct" and the other "incorrect"?

I say, what makes them objective?

>>93967

>What makes one of us "correct" and the other "incorrect"?

Because claiming something is subjective or objective is itself an objective claim.

Morality is subjective in that humans invent their own morals and give their own meaning to them. My individual moral code is different from someone else's, one culture's moral code is different from another's, etc. There is no universal objective morality.

Your Holocaust example is pointless; according to Hitler's moral code, he thought he was doing the right thing. Furthermore, it's stupid to say that "according to subjective morality, the Holocaust is equally moral to the civil rights movement", because firstly, that completely depends on one's moral code, and secondly, there is no tangible way of measuring morality. Moral subjectivity does not imply that all actions are equally moral or immoral; that would be nihilism.

>>93940

>Causality, ergo Determinism, ergo no free will.

What if you reject hard determinism? I think that determinism takes us 99% of the way there, but not all the way. There must be some very small element of free will, or at least chance. What about physical indeterminism? Quantam mechanics?

How do you personally reconcile your notion of free will with your beliefs in hard determinism? It just seems so fatalistic to me...maybe this is totally fallacious on my part, but on this matter I just can't conclude 100% hard determinism, I would rather hope for some small element of free will...soft determinism.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

See thread http://disc.420chan.org/ph/res/93966.shtml you guys could philosophize over this together.

>>93937 How much do clothes cost in the matrix?

When I was taking doses this summer with my friends, the things I saw while tripping weren't like what my friends were seeing. I was seeing the end of time, I saw holes in reality that lead to the final day, there was fire raining down from the sky, my 'friends' became creatures that were dancing around me and mocking me, telling me I wasn't prepared for the end.

That's one hallucination I had. Another one was we went for a walk and these shadowy creatures were running around us and leaping ontop of houses. If I looked at them, I would get a glimpse of another reality, painful things. Horrible things. Some good, but it left me with a feeling of....well, I was very distraught.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>93955
We're all naked really so it's awwwwright

>>93971
The afterlife part is something I need to try to look deeper into, of course it's hard to say exactly what will pop up in your mind when you're trippin' but the life part is pretty clear to me but from what I've learned it feels like I need to revise my old belief of you being alone in darkness with only your own voice as company for eternity.

>>93976
I think the afterlife will be comfort.

I envision rolling around in soft clouds with a beautiful girl that only exists in my mind wrapped in my arms. Beautiful baby...I love her so much, she's helped me through my darkest times, I just wish she was real. v.v;;

Trick question. It's impossible to kill 10 million kittens. I did the math, and you'd be killing kittens your entire life before you ever got the money.

>>93926
lol hurr durr you did the math based on hypothetical assessments that none of us can answer? cool story bro.

I wouldn't kill a cat for a dollar, but I probably would for 1,000$ I wouldn't like it, of course, but fuck man, money is more important than the lives of kittens.

>>93926
unless they were all in one place, and you had a nuke, or you released a kitten plague. think outside the box you silly billy.

And here we have the mindset of a PETArd.
>>93706

>There's a difference between wild animals and domesticated animals.

>>93865
Then there would be no such thing as sin. a sin requires one to knowingly, and willingly giving into temptation.

>>93896
Regardless of us having free will or not, sin cannot exist. We have a tendency for irrational and biased choices, it's our nature. Sin require a pure mind capable of differencing good from bad (given those concepts even are true), and as you surely know, THAT is probably the hardest thing to do.

>What if

And I answer your what if with "so what?" If answering your question won't make a difference, why should I? In fact if you were destined to type and post this thread, than nothing you or I say matters, so why bother?

>>93894
>>93895

Depends on how you are defining fatalism, seems to bee a whole lot of different definitions of it.

>>93910
nothing you say matters anyway even if you had free will.

yes, because it's more of a challenge.
That and man's irrational and arbitrary nature disturbs me.

Yes, I know exactly what you mean!

It's just that I see animals as such innocent and beautiful beings, where as the human race just... disgusts me.

ITT: Trolls trolling trolls trolling idiots.

>>93860
humans are animals idiot.

>>93959
So the question is would you rather kill an animal or an animal. Then the answer is an animal. /thread

Good job anon....

Assuming of course we still evolved to have intelligence, etc

Good question.

That would have severe implications on our psyche. Not only would the concept of criminal behavior gone down the shitter but every current social norm and communication.

If we were individualistic like the leopard, I guess we would not have any civilization at all. With no tribe to speak of, any culture or advanced tools would be none-existant. However, seeing as our survival solely depends on our intelligence, evolution would've probably favored intelligent and creative persons. If you discovered how to make a better spear or clothing, and didn't share it with other humans you would have a tremendous advantage over other individs.

it would take so much longer to develop intellegence
and even if intellegence was developed it would destroy it would be prone to self destruction

Arguably, if our ape-like ancestors were not social animals we would have never come to be. One human is weak, even with a high intelligence.

It's possible there would still be societies. Strong individuals could possibly bring others under their control by means of brute force to perform menial tasks such as food gathering/agriculture. Of course this would lead to an oppressive and unstable society rife with backstabbing, but that's the most you'd be able to get out of creating a society out of individualist animals.

>>93907
you should post some more mudkipz then

>>93907
You're a faggot dude, at least you use a trip.

So now everyone knows why tripfaggots are a bad thing.

I love you mods

>>93907

MODS = GODS

Back to your regularly scheduled logical discussion?

>>93914

Tripcodes are fine, especially if the ID of someone changes, it's just that they should be used sparingly. I generally keep the rule of a maximum of using it once per thread, but I rarely do even that except in important circumstances (such as someone finally getting banned to show my appreciation, or to attempt to solve a situation once and for all so people can stop talking about the same thing ad nauseam).

Then again, being narcissistic and using tripcodes all the time to act like you're "better" than other people is just a dick move. That is what would make someone a tripfag in my book, at least.

It's called apophenia. Shit happens.

OP read Cosmic Trigger by Robert Anton Wilson.

Maybe you think that you predicted the future however your brain is just tricking you into thinking that and you did no such thing.

Memory is not a thing to be trusted, smoke less weed.

scary stuff op. i believe you are delusional. do not go any further with these beliefs or you will end up in the looney bin sucka. Also, think of all the things you DIDN'T predict that happen. shitloads of shit dawg.

>>93928

I agree. I was also thinking about this concept earlier and the solution just came down to mere probability. The thing is, you think about tons of things, tons of things happen. It is probable and coincidental that a few of these things correlate. The thing is, you don't remember all of the things that DIDN'T correlate but you did the things that did. You therefore think you have some precognition sense.

Think about this, how many times a day do you look at the clock? You don't remember all of the other times that isn't 11:11. The thing is, you are probably in a common situation at 11:11 where a clock is readily accessible.

I'm so sorry next time I'll write to you guys as if I'm writing a paper for school. Yeah, that's what I'll do I'll make sure you get everything you ask for. But remember the truth relies with in you. No one can tell you what the truth is you must find it your self.

>>93870

You have to realize that you can't just spout random feel-good bullshit without backing it up with logic and/or supporting evidence. If you do you're just going to catch flak (like you currently have been getting).

Basically put, your words lack substance. Everything you've said is meaningless. You might as well be saying "an apple is red".

>>93874

>You might as well be saying "an apple is red".

Careful....that's the trigger for one of the most annoying re-occurring debates here on /ph/

>>93874

Who says that the colour you perceive as red is the same colour I perceive? Isn't there a possibility that your 'red' for example, has in fact a blue colour?

>>93925
NO! Stop right there!