Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Epistemic Philosophy

Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2015 1:08:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This will (hopefully) be the first in a set of topics.

My intention in creating these topics is to create a hub of sorts in which people can discuss their positions on major branches of philosophy, in contrast to addressing a single concept. All are welcome to submit their positions and discuss those of others.

To begin, I am an epistemic contextualist. This position states that the definition of knowledge is context sensitive.

This results from different forms of elaboration on Plato's definition, true justified belief, rooted in the definition of justification.

In everyday use, I utilize the evidentialist definition, which states that a claim is justified when it coincides with the available information we hold. This leads me to fallibilism in everyday use, which holds knowledge while qualifying its existence by allowing for it to be proven false in the future.

In a philosophical sense, I use the infallibilist definition, which only allows justification to claims which are proven beyond doubt. I am a pyrrhonian skeptic in this sense, as I do not believe any claim can rise to this standard.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 10:04:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/23/2015 1:08:42 PM, Nac wrote:
This will (hopefully) be the first in a set of topics.

My intention in creating these topics is to create a hub of sorts in which people can discuss their positions on major branches of philosophy, in contrast to addressing a single concept. All are welcome to submit their positions and discuss those of others.


To begin, I am an epistemic contextualist. This position states that the definition of knowledge is context sensitive.

This results from different forms of elaboration on Plato's definition, true justified belief, rooted in the definition of justification.

In everyday use, I utilize the evidentialist definition, which states that a claim is justified when it coincides with the available information we hold. This leads me to fallibilism in everyday use, which holds knowledge while qualifying its existence by allowing for it to be proven false in the future.

In a philosophical sense, I use the infallibilist definition, which only allows justification to claims which are proven beyond doubt. I am a pyrrhonian skeptic in this sense, as I do not believe any claim can rise to this standard.
I don't fully grasp the concept yet, but I agree that knowledge is not intellect specific. Each human being draws a level of understanding that helps him/her understand.

As always, I look forward to reading every comment you post. Your insight helps me grasp the concept. Thank you.

TRUTH (IS) = KNOWLEDGE
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 7:59:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 10:04:21 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/23/2015 1:08:42 PM, Nac wrote:
This will (hopefully) be the first in a set of topics.

My intention in creating these topics is to create a hub of sorts in which people can discuss their positions on major branches of philosophy, in contrast to addressing a single concept. All are welcome to submit their positions and discuss those of others.


To begin, I am an epistemic contextualist. This position states that the definition of knowledge is context sensitive.

This results from different forms of elaboration on Plato's definition, true justified belief, rooted in the definition of justification.

In everyday use, I utilize the evidentialist definition, which states that a claim is justified when it coincides with the available information we hold. This leads me to fallibilism in everyday use, which holds knowledge while qualifying its existence by allowing for it to be proven false in the future.

In a philosophical sense, I use the infallibilist definition, which only allows justification to claims which are proven beyond doubt. I am a pyrrhonian skeptic in this sense, as I do not believe any claim can rise to this standard.
I don't fully grasp the concept yet, but I agree that knowledge is not intellect specific. Each human being draws a level of understanding that helps him/her understand.
I do see this framework, and think that, in the first sense I discussed, it does exist. The first perspective is essentially a formulation of the null hypothesis, which refers to the nature of knowledge, a differing concept from the way knowledge is gained which you discuss.
As always, I look forward to reading every comment you post. Your insight helps me grasp the concept. Thank you.
I can only hope to achieve the intellect you believe I have. I am flattered beyond belief, but don't really know if the praise is warranted. Nevertheless, I will take my best shot at it.
TRUTH (IS) = KNOWLEDGE
Though this is a powerful sentiment, I must disagree. Generally, the definition is "justified true belief" meaning we must be justified in believing something is true for it to be knowledge.

I apologize for the semantics.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 8:18:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 7:59:28 AM, Nac wrote:
At 5/24/2015 10:04:21 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/23/2015 1:08:42 PM, Nac wrote:
This will (hopefully) be the first in a set of topics.

My intention in creating these topics is to create a hub of sorts in which people can discuss their positions on major branches of philosophy, in contrast to addressing a single concept. All are welcome to submit their positions and discuss those of others.


To begin, I am an epistemic contextualist. This position states that the definition of knowledge is context sensitive.

This results from different forms of elaboration on Plato's definition, true justified belief, rooted in the definition of justification.

In everyday use, I utilize the evidentialist definition, which states that a claim is justified when it coincides with the available information we hold. This leads me to fallibilism in everyday use, which holds knowledge while qualifying its existence by allowing for it to be proven false in the future.

In a philosophical sense, I use the infallibilist definition, which only allows justification to claims which are proven beyond doubt. I am a pyrrhonian skeptic in this sense, as I do not believe any claim can rise to this standard.
I don't fully grasp the concept yet, but I agree that knowledge is not intellect specific. Each human being draws a level of understanding that helps him/her understand.
I do see this framework, and think that, in the first sense I discussed, it does exist. The first perspective is essentially a formulation of the null hypothesis, which refers to the nature of knowledge, a differing concept from the way knowledge is gained which you discuss.
As always, I look forward to reading every comment you post. Your insight helps me grasp the concept. Thank you.
I can only hope to achieve the intellect you believe I have. I am flattered beyond belief, but don't really know if the praise is warranted. Nevertheless, I will take my best shot at it.
TRUTH (IS) = KNOWLEDGE
Though this is a powerful sentiment, I must disagree. Generally, the definition is "justified true belief" meaning we must be justified in believing something is true for it to be knowledge.

I apologize for the semantics.

No apology necessary. For me its quite simple. Science states that every every action has a equal and opposite reaction. Therefore predestiny is true. Therefore GOD (hallowed be thy name) exists.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 8:44:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 8:18:56 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/25/2015 7:59:28 AM, Nac wrote:
At 5/24/2015 10:04:21 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/23/2015 1:08:42 PM, Nac wrote:
This will (hopefully) be the first in a set of topics.

My intention in creating these topics is to create a hub of sorts in which people can discuss their positions on major branches of philosophy, in contrast to addressing a single concept. All are welcome to submit their positions and discuss those of others.


To begin, I am an epistemic contextualist. This position states that the definition of knowledge is context sensitive.

This results from different forms of elaboration on Plato's definition, true justified belief, rooted in the definition of justification.

In everyday use, I utilize the evidentialist definition, which states that a claim is justified when it coincides with the available information we hold. This leads me to fallibilism in everyday use, which holds knowledge while qualifying its existence by allowing for it to be proven false in the future.

In a philosophical sense, I use the infallibilist definition, which only allows justification to claims which are proven beyond doubt. I am a pyrrhonian skeptic in this sense, as I do not believe any claim can rise to this standard.
I don't fully grasp the concept yet, but I agree that knowledge is not intellect specific. Each human being draws a level of understanding that helps him/her understand.
I do see this framework, and think that, in the first sense I discussed, it does exist. The first perspective is essentially a formulation of the null hypothesis, which refers to the nature of knowledge, a differing concept from the way knowledge is gained which you discuss.
As always, I look forward to reading every comment you post. Your insight helps me grasp the concept. Thank you.
I can only hope to achieve the intellect you believe I have. I am flattered beyond belief, but don't really know if the praise is warranted. Nevertheless, I will take my best shot at it.
TRUTH (IS) = KNOWLEDGE
Though this is a powerful sentiment, I must disagree. Generally, the definition is "justified true belief" meaning we must be justified in believing something is true for it to be knowledge.

I apologize for the semantics.

No apology necessary. For me its quite simple. Science states that every every action has a equal and opposite reaction. Therefore predestiny is true. Therefore GOD (hallowed be thy name) exists.

Actually it doesn't. What you're doing is extending Newton's 3rd law of motion beyond its actual scope. Not to mention that the two conclusions you make don't actually follow.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 8:49:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 8:18:56 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/25/2015 7:59:28 AM, Nac wrote:
At 5/24/2015 10:04:21 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/23/2015 1:08:42 PM, Nac wrote:
This will (hopefully) be the first in a set of topics.

My intention in creating these topics is to create a hub of sorts in which people can discuss their positions on major branches of philosophy, in contrast to addressing a single concept. All are welcome to submit their positions and discuss those of others.


To begin, I am an epistemic contextualist. This position states that the definition of knowledge is context sensitive.

This results from different forms of elaboration on Plato's definition, true justified belief, rooted in the definition of justification.

In everyday use, I utilize the evidentialist definition, which states that a claim is justified when it coincides with the available information we hold. This leads me to fallibilism in everyday use, which holds knowledge while qualifying its existence by allowing for it to be proven false in the future.

In a philosophical sense, I use the infallibilist definition, which only allows justification to claims which are proven beyond doubt. I am a pyrrhonian skeptic in this sense, as I do not believe any claim can rise to this standard.
I don't fully grasp the concept yet, but I agree that knowledge is not intellect specific. Each human being draws a level of understanding that helps him/her understand.
I do see this framework, and think that, in the first sense I discussed, it does exist. The first perspective is essentially a formulation of the null hypothesis, which refers to the nature of knowledge, a differing concept from the way knowledge is gained which you discuss.
As always, I look forward to reading every comment you post. Your insight helps me grasp the concept. Thank you.
I can only hope to achieve the intellect you believe I have. I am flattered beyond belief, but don't really know if the praise is warranted. Nevertheless, I will take my best shot at it.
TRUTH (IS) = KNOWLEDGE
Though this is a powerful sentiment, I must disagree. Generally, the definition is "justified true belief" meaning we must be justified in believing something is true for it to be knowledge.

I apologize for the semantics.

No apology necessary. For me its quite simple. Science states that every every action has a equal and opposite reaction. Therefore predestiny is true. Therefore GOD (hallowed be thy name) exists.

I am not sure I follow. Please allow for me to place this into premise conclusion form.

P1) (Ax)(Ey) s>Ax>Ryx&Exy&Oxy
S implies that, for all x, there exists a y such that, if x is an action, then y is a reaction to x and x is equal and opposite to y, where s is science.

P2) (Ax)(Ey) Ax&Ryx&Exy&Oxy>p
If, for all x, there exists... then p, where p is predestiny.

P3) s>p (P1, P2, HS)
By hypothetical syllogism (p>q, q>r, therefore p>r) science implies predestiny.

My issue with this are as follows:

1. P1 does not have this broad of a scope. It is a part of Newton's laws of motion, which do not address choice, the mind, free will, or any other phenomenon. This extrapolation may be possible, but it will not be done solely utilizing physics. It will need further research to show that the laws which bind the physical world bind these abstract ideals.

2. If the aforementioned link were shown, would this not display humanity's ability to shape their own fate? An additional step would need to be demonstrated that precludes the existence of a first choice, or else free will may very well still exist.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 10:45:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 8:49:00 AM, Nac wrote:
At 5/25/2015 8:18:56 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/25/2015 7:59:28 AM, Nac wrote:
At 5/24/2015 10:04:21 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/23/2015 1:08:42 PM, Nac wrote:
This will (hopefully) be the first in a set of topics.

My intention in creating these topics is to create a hub of sorts in which people can discuss their positions on major branches of philosophy, in contrast to addressing a single concept. All are welcome to submit their positions and discuss those of others.


To begin, I am an epistemic contextualist. This position states that the definition of knowledge is context sensitive.

This results from different forms of elaboration on Plato's definition, true justified belief, rooted in the definition of justification.

In everyday use, I utilize the evidentialist definition, which states that a claim is justified when it coincides with the available information we hold. This leads me to fallibilism in everyday use, which holds knowledge while qualifying its existence by allowing for it to be proven false in the future.

In a philosophical sense, I use the infallibilist definition, which only allows justification to claims which are proven beyond doubt. I am a pyrrhonian skeptic in this sense, as I do not believe any claim can rise to this standard.
I don't fully grasp the concept yet, but I agree that knowledge is not intellect specific. Each human being draws a level of understanding that helps him/her understand.
I do see this framework, and think that, in the first sense I discussed, it does exist. The first perspective is essentially a formulation of the null hypothesis, which refers to the nature of knowledge, a differing concept from the way knowledge is gained which you discuss.
As always, I look forward to reading every comment you post. Your insight helps me grasp the concept. Thank you.
I can only hope to achieve the intellect you believe I have. I am flattered beyond belief, but don't really know if the praise is warranted. Nevertheless, I will take my best shot at it.
TRUTH (IS) = KNOWLEDGE
Though this is a powerful sentiment, I must disagree. Generally, the definition is "justified true belief" meaning we must be justified in believing something is true for it to be knowledge.

I apologize for the semantics.

No apology necessary. For me its quite simple. Science states that every every action has a equal and opposite reaction. Therefore predestiny is true. Therefore GOD (hallowed be thy name) exists.

I am not sure I follow. Please allow for me to place this into premise conclusion form.

P1) (Ax)(Ey) s>Ax>Ryx&Exy&Oxy
S implies that, for all x, there exists a y such that, if x is an action, then y is a reaction to x and x is equal and opposite to y, where s is science.

P2) (Ax)(Ey) Ax&Ryx&Exy&Oxy>p
If, for all x, there exists... then p, where p is predestiny.

P3) s>p (P1, P2, HS)
By hypothetical syllogism (p>q, q>r, therefore p>r) science implies predestiny.

My issue with this are as follows:

1. P1 does not have this broad of a scope. It is a part of Newton's laws of motion, which do not address choice, the mind, free will, or any other phenomenon. This extrapolation may be possible, but it will not be done solely utilizing physics. It will need further research to show that the laws which bind the physical world bind these abstract ideals.

2. If the aforementioned link were shown, would this not display humanity's ability to shape their own fate? An additional step would need to be demonstrated that precludes the existence of a first choice, or else free will may very well still exist.

Why complicate things?
X results in y. y becomes x. Repeat. = predestiny
X = love
TRUTH (IS) = EXISTS
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 10:56:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 10:45:23 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/25/2015 8:49:00 AM, Nac wrote:
At 5/25/2015 8:18:56 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/25/2015 7:59:28 AM, Nac wrote:
At 5/24/2015 10:04:21 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/23/2015 1:08:42 PM, Nac wrote:
This will (hopefully) be the first in a set of topics.

My intention in creating these topics is to create a hub of sorts in which people can discuss their positions on major branches of philosophy, in contrast to addressing a single concept. All are welcome to submit their positions and discuss those of others.


To begin, I am an epistemic contextualist. This position states that the definition of knowledge is context sensitive.

This results from different forms of elaboration on Plato's definition, true justified belief, rooted in the definition of justification.

In everyday use, I utilize the evidentialist definition, which states that a claim is justified when it coincides with the available information we hold. This leads me to fallibilism in everyday use, which holds knowledge while qualifying its existence by allowing for it to be proven false in the future.

In a philosophical sense, I use the infallibilist definition, which only allows justification to claims which are proven beyond doubt. I am a pyrrhonian skeptic in this sense, as I do not believe any claim can rise to this standard.
I don't fully grasp the concept yet, but I agree that knowledge is not intellect specific. Each human being draws a level of understanding that helps him/her understand.
I do see this framework, and think that, in the first sense I discussed, it does exist. The first perspective is essentially a formulation of the null hypothesis, which refers to the nature of knowledge, a differing concept from the way knowledge is gained which you discuss.
As always, I look forward to reading every comment you post. Your insight helps me grasp the concept. Thank you.
I can only hope to achieve the intellect you believe I have. I am flattered beyond belief, but don't really know if the praise is warranted. Nevertheless, I will take my best shot at it.
TRUTH (IS) = KNOWLEDGE
Though this is a powerful sentiment, I must disagree. Generally, the definition is "justified true belief" meaning we must be justified in believing something is true for it to be knowledge.

I apologize for the semantics.

No apology necessary. For me its quite simple. Science states that every every action has a equal and opposite reaction. Therefore predestiny is true. Therefore GOD (hallowed be thy name) exists.

I am not sure I follow. Please allow for me to place this into premise conclusion form.

P1) (Ax)(Ey) s>Ax>Ryx&Exy&Oxy
S implies that, for all x, there exists a y such that, if x is an action, then y is a reaction to x and x is equal and opposite to y, where s is science.

P2) (Ax)(Ey) Ax&Ryx&Exy&Oxy>p
If, for all x, there exists... then p, where p is predestiny.

P3) s>p (P1, P2, HS)
By hypothetical syllogism (p>q, q>r, therefore p>r) science implies predestiny.

My issue with this are as follows:

1. P1 does not have this broad of a scope. It is a part of Newton's laws of motion, which do not address choice, the mind, free will, or any other phenomenon. This extrapolation may be possible, but it will not be done solely utilizing physics. It will need further research to show that the laws which bind the physical world bind these abstract ideals.

2. If the aforementioned link were shown, would this not display humanity's ability to shape their own fate? An additional step would need to be demonstrated that precludes the existence of a first choice, or else free will may very well still exist.

Why complicate things?
I am sorry that you view my rebuttal as complicated. My intention was to place the premises in a context which allows my brain to understand them in an easier fashion, and relay my issues to you after clearly comprehending your argument using this framework. I see this as necessary, though it may be drawn out.
X results in y. y becomes x. Repeat. = predestiny
X = love
Could you please clarify what y is as well? I cannot really comment until I understand the full breadth of your point.
TRUTH (IS) = EXISTS
I am confused by this statement. I will throw out possible interpretations, and I would find it helpful if you state which interpretation fits your point.
1. Truth exists.
2. Truth and existence are the same.
3. Truth and existence are different, but are in direct proportion in all cases.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 11:41:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 11:11:41 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Y = action

1 and 3 are true. 2 is sujectively true only.

Thank you for the assistance.

I would now like to repeat the same process I provided above, as you do not appear to object. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Assuming l is love, and p is predestiny:

P1) (Ay) Ay>Cly
For all y, if y is an action, then y was caused by l.

Objections:

a. This in no way seems to be true. Actions seem to have the ability to be caused by a wide array of things, such as fear, rebellion, etc.

b. As well, love should be defined, as the term itself is rather nebulous.

c. Do we not have the choice to act against love? Could you please explain how you know this?

P2) (Ay) Ay>Byl
For all y, if y is an action, then y becomes l

Objections:

1. 1b - the second problem in premise 1 applies here as well.

2. This does not seem to be all cases as well.
P3) Cly&Byl>p
Where y is an action, if y was caused by l, and y becomes l, then p.

Objections:

1. Did love or action come first? Could you please display how this is known?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 12:50:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 11:41:50 AM, Nac wrote:
At 5/25/2015 11:11:41 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Y = action

1 and 3 are true. 2 is sujectively true only.

Thank you for the assistance.

I would now like to repeat the same process I provided above, as you do not appear to object. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Assuming l is love, and p is predestiny:

P1) (Ay) Ay>Cly
For all y, if y is an action, then y was caused by l.

Objections:

a. This in no way seems to be true. Actions seem to have the ability to be caused by a wide array of things, such as fear, rebellion, etc.

Fear of what? Injury? Death? To who? Family? Friends? Self?
Cause. Love family. Love friends. Love self

Rebellion against who? Please specify.

b. As well, love should be defined, as the term itself is rather nebulous.

c. Do we not have the choice to act against love? Could you please explain how you know this?

P2) (Ay) Ay>Byl
For all y, if y is an action, then y becomes l

Objections:

1. 1b - the second problem in premise 1 applies here as well.

2. This does not seem to be all cases as well.
P3) Cly&Byl>p
Where y is an action, if y was caused by l, and y becomes l, then p.

Objections:

1. Did love or action come first? Could you please display how this is known?
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 1:01:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 12:50:36 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/25/2015 11:41:50 AM, Nac wrote:
At 5/25/2015 11:11:41 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Y = action

1 and 3 are true. 2 is sujectively true only.

Thank you for the assistance.

I would now like to repeat the same process I provided above, as you do not appear to object. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Assuming l is love, and p is predestiny:

P1) (Ay) Ay>Cly
For all y, if y is an action, then y was caused by l.

Objections:

a. This in no way seems to be true. Actions seem to have the ability to be caused by a wide array of things, such as fear, rebellion, etc.

Fear of what? Injury? Death? To who? Family? Friends? Self?
Cause. Love family. Love friends. Love self

Rebellion against who? Please specify.
Parents is the example that comes to mind.

Additionally, it does not appear as if we can ascertain their true motives in any sense. Could you please build a case which supports the opposite? I believe the burden of proof is on you. Do you disagree with this?
b. As well, love should be defined, as the term itself is rather nebulous.
This is the definition that I have found: "An intense feeling of deep affection" (Oxford Dictionary). Does this definition work?
c. Do we not have the choice to act against love? Could you please explain how you know this?

P2) (Ay) Ay>Byl
For all y, if y is an action, then y becomes l

Objections:

1. 1b - the second problem in premise 1 applies here as well.

2. This does not seem to be all cases as well.
P3) Cly&Byl>p
Where y is an action, if y was caused by l, and y becomes l, then p.

Objections:

1. Did love or action come first? Could you please display how this is known?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 1:17:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 1:01:41 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/25/2015 12:50:36 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/25/2015 11:41:50 AM, Nac wrote:
At 5/25/2015 11:11:41 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Y = action

1 and 3 are true. 2 is sujectively true only.

Thank you for the assistance.

I would now like to repeat the same process I provided above, as you do not appear to object. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Assuming l is love, and p is predestiny:

P1) (Ay) Ay>Cly
For all y, if y is an action, then y was caused by l.

Objections:

a. This in no way seems to be true. Actions seem to have the ability to be caused by a wide array of things, such as fear, rebellion, etc.

Fear of what? Injury? Death? To who? Family? Friends? Self?
Cause. Love family. Love friends. Love self

Rebellion against who? Please specify.
Parents is the example that comes to mind.

This is a particularly difficult one. Because you love your parents. But sometimes their values are old fashioned or just outright immoral. You love them and want to please them, but they also taught you to do the right thing. In the case where a father is biast against a particular religious sect, and personally you believe this is wrong, you are forced to choose between two loves. You love your parents but you believe they are wrong. You love your parents so you want to please them by doing the right thing. Rebellion is an act of love, against the people you love. You don't do it cause you hate them.
Or it could just be that you love someone from that sect.

Additionally, it does not appear as if we can ascertain their true motives in any sense. Could you please build a case which supports the opposite? I believe the burden of proof is on you. Do you disagree with this?
b. As well, love should be defined, as the term itself is rather nebulous.
This is the definition that I have found: "An intense feeling of deep affection" (Oxford Dictionary). Does this definition work?
c. Do we not have the choice to act against love? Could you please explain how you know this?

P2) (Ay) Ay>Byl
For all y, if y is an action, then y becomes l

Objections:

1. 1b - the second problem in premise 1 applies here as well.

2. This does not seem to be all cases as well.
P3) Cly&Byl>p
Where y is an action, if y was caused by l, and y becomes l, then p.

Objections:

1. Did love or action come first? Could you please display how this is known?
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 1:19:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 1:17:29 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/25/2015 1:01:41 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/25/2015 12:50:36 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/25/2015 11:41:50 AM, Nac wrote:
At 5/25/2015 11:11:41 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Y = action

1 and 3 are true. 2 is sujectively true only.

Thank you for the assistance.

I would now like to repeat the same process I provided above, as you do not appear to object. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Assuming l is love, and p is predestiny:

P1) (Ay) Ay>Cly
For all y, if y is an action, then y was caused by l.

Objections:

a. This in no way seems to be true. Actions seem to have the ability to be caused by a wide array of things, such as fear, rebellion, etc.

Fear of what? Injury? Death? To who? Family? Friends? Self?
Cause. Love family. Love friends. Love self

Rebellion against who? Please specify.
Parents is the example that comes to mind.

This is a particularly difficult one. Because you love your parents. But sometimes their values are old fashioned or just outright immoral. You love them and want to please them, but they also taught you to do the right thing. In the case where a father is biast against a particular religious sect, and personally you believe this is wrong, you are forced to choose between two loves. You love your parents but you believe they are wrong. You love your parents so you want to please them by doing the right thing. Rebellion is an act of love, against the people you love. You don't do it cause you hate them.
Or it could just be that you love someone from that sect.


Additionally, it does not appear as if we can ascertain their true motives in any sense. Could you please build a case which supports the opposite? I believe the burden of proof is on you. Do you disagree with this?
Could you please address this? I feel as if this issue is imperative to understanding each other.

b. As well, love should be defined, as the term itself is rather nebulous.
This is the definition that I have found: "An intense feeling of deep affection" (Oxford Dictionary). Does this definition work?
c. Do we not have the choice to act against love? Could you please explain how you know this?

P2) (Ay) Ay>Byl
For all y, if y is an action, then y becomes l

Objections:

1. 1b - the second problem in premise 1 applies here as well.

2. This does not seem to be all cases as well.
P3) Cly&Byl>p
Where y is an action, if y was caused by l, and y becomes l, then p.

Objections:

1. Did love or action come first? Could you please display how this is known?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 1:53:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Love is love. How else can you describe it? A sense of euphoria created by the release of dopomine into the bloodstream. You love coffee. You love your parents. You love life. Everything you do is for love.

I cant give you the formula as knowing the reason someone does things allows you to see into their subconcious. This is very dangerous as it allows you to control them.

But if you want, I can prove it works.



Additionally, it does not appear as if we can ascertain their true motives in any sense. Could you please build a case which supports the opposite? I believe the burden of proof is on you. Do you disagree with this?
Could you please address this? I feel as if this issue is imperative to understanding each other.


b. As well, love should be defined, as the term itself is rather nebulous.
This is the definition that I have found: "An intense feeling of deep affection" (Oxford Dictionary). Does this definition work?
c. Do we not have the choice to act against love? Could you please explain how you know this?

P2) (Ay) Ay>Byl
For all y, if y is an action, then y becomes l

Objections:

1. 1b - the second problem in premise 1 applies here as well.

2. This does not seem to be all cases as well.
P3) Cly&Byl>p
Where y is an action, if y was caused by l, and y becomes l, then p.

Objections:

1. Did love or action come first? Could you please display how this is known?
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 3:45:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 1:53:58 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Love is love. How else can you describe it? A sense of euphoria created by the release of dopomine into the bloodstream. You love coffee. You love your parents. You love life. Everything you do is for love.

I cant give you the formula as knowing the reason someone does things allows you to see into their subconcious. This is very dangerous as it allows you to control them.

But if you want, I can prove it works.

If you could show me how this works, with proof, I would be delighted. I cannot really understand how this is possible, however, due to the existence of sociopaths and the like.



Additionally, it does not appear as if we can ascertain their true motives in any sense. Could you please build a case which supports the opposite? I believe the burden of proof is on you. Do you disagree with this?
Could you please address this? I feel as if this issue is imperative to understanding each other.


b. As well, love should be defined, as the term itself is rather nebulous.
This is the definition that I have found: "An intense feeling of deep affection" (Oxford Dictionary). Does this definition work?
c. Do we not have the choice to act against love? Could you please explain how you know this?

P2) (Ay) Ay>Byl
For all y, if y is an action, then y becomes l

Objections:

1. 1b - the second problem in premise 1 applies here as well.

2. This does not seem to be all cases as well.
P3) Cly&Byl>p
Where y is an action, if y was caused by l, and y becomes l, then p.

Objections:

1. Did love or action come first? Could you please display how this is known?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 3:50:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 3:45:09 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/25/2015 1:53:58 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Love is love. How else can you describe it? A sense of euphoria created by the release of dopomine into the bloodstream. You love coffee. You love your parents. You love life. Everything you do is for love.

I cant give you the formula as knowing the reason someone does things allows you to see into their subconcious. This is very dangerous as it allows you to control them.

But if you want, I can prove it works.

If you could show me how this works, with proof, I would be delighted. I cannot really understand how this is possible, however, due to the existence of sociopaths and the like.

Like I said earlier, all actions are determined by love. Even a sociopath must love to live or he would simply starve to death. He loves nobody else so his actions are all for self enjoyment. Because he loves himself. Now can you think of an action that you feel is impossibly caused by love? don't give me the defenition of the action. Give me an actual example.

Additionally, it does not appear as if we can ascertain their true motives in any sense. Could you please build a case which supports the opposite? I believe the burden of proof is on you. Do you disagree with this?
Could you please address this? I feel as if this issue is imperative to understanding each other.


b. As well, love should be defined, as the term itself is rather nebulous.
This is the definition that I have found: "An intense feeling of deep affection" (Oxford Dictionary). Does this definition work?
c. Do we not have the choice to act against love? Could you please explain how you know this?

P2) (Ay) Ay>Byl
For all y, if y is an action, then y becomes l

Objections:

1. 1b - the second problem in premise 1 applies here as well.

2. This does not seem to be all cases as well.
P3) Cly&Byl>p
Where y is an action, if y was caused by l, and y becomes l, then p.

Objections:

1. Did love or action come first? Could you please display how this is known?
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 4:18:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 3:50:52 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 5/25/2015 3:45:09 PM, Nac wrote:
At 5/25/2015 1:53:58 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Love is love. How else can you describe it? A sense of euphoria created by the release of dopomine into the bloodstream. You love coffee. You love your parents. You love life. Everything you do is for love.

I cant give you the formula as knowing the reason someone does things allows you to see into their subconcious. This is very dangerous as it allows you to control them.

But if you want, I can prove it works.

If you could show me how this works, with proof, I would be delighted. I cannot really understand how this is possible, however, due to the existence of sociopaths and the like.

Like I said earlier, all actions are determined by love. Even a sociopath must love to live or he would simply starve to death. He loves nobody else so his actions are all for self enjoyment. Because he loves himself. Now can you think of an action that you feel is impossibly caused by love? don't give me the defenition of the action. Give me an actual example.
I would say suicide. This seems to be tough to link to love.

As well, does this system not just establish a single possible explanation? There seem to be numerous other possibilities.

To list a few: responsibility, fear (I was more focused on establishing this framework than attacking your criticisms), hatred, justice, and empathy.

To ensure this system is exclusive to love, please propose examples to me as well.

For my own:
Responsibility: To my desire.
Fear: Of being harmed later.
Hatred: Towards life.
Justice: Correcting past wrongs.
Empathy: Feeling sorry for those in these situations.

My issue is that your argument would work for all of these things.

In fact, love can simply be rewritten as the hatred of alternatives. We have no way of knowing which action came first.

You may also have an obligation you feel to love. We cannot disprove this, and it would explain the exact same phenomena.

Without proper justification, we are simply led to a situation with plenty of alternatives. We must be able to disprove any of these claims, which I do not believe we are able to do.

As an aside, do you believe your formulation is true in an everyday sense, or in a philosophical sense?