. I'll admit, I've never been good at pragmatic ethics. I prefer meta-ethical theories. I like to be removed from reality for fear that my thinking might actually effect other peoples lives
Full Version: Philosophical Investigations
Cool Bling Bling Angel .
I'll admit, I've never been good at pragmatic ethics. I prefer meta-ethical theories. I like to be removed from reality for fear that my thinking might actually effect other peoples lives
. I'll admit, I've never been good at pragmatic ethics. I prefer meta-ethical theories. I like to be removed from reality for fear that my thinking might actually effect other peoples lives
Ach, the only exposure to Philsophy I have had is the Matrix. I mainly think about Theology in weird ways. Perhaps I'll take Philsophy the next chance I get.
QUOTE
If I were to say, 'this water is not water' would I be breaking the form 'p & ~p'? Of course not. I would be actually making a statement of the form 'p & ~q'.
If you would discover this truth, you wouldn't call this water 'water' but you can make a difference between them and automatically give a new name for it, which is q then. If you say the sentence 'This water(what was called 'water' after the old laws) is no water(in the sense of the new laws under which we understand 'water' now). So you make a difference between the laws in the past and the laws in the present. And this means that this sentence is useless if you see it in the sense of the new laws, because you automatically from this moment state that this thing is another thing and that means that you have to give this thing another name, which means that you can't refer this sense of new water with the sense of old water.
QUOTE
2: This water is not water
On the surface, the statement would be of the form 'p & ~p' because both of us believe that the water is the same on twin earth and earth. Once we know that the water is different, the structure of the statement changes to 'p & ~q'.
On the surface, the statement would be of the form 'p & ~p' because both of us believe that the water is the same on twin earth and earth. Once we know that the water is different, the structure of the statement changes to 'p & ~q'.
That means, you say it's the same case as water isn't water, but you say that 'matter(in the old sense='p') isn't matter(in a sense that wasn't yet discovered='~q'). Hm, that sounds like how a typic physician would argue. -> If there's something you can't describe, then you found a new kind of matter(like dark matter, anti-gravitation matter, etc. which weren't discovered yet).
After you discovered something which widens your range of knowledge and truth-system(logic), the range of the logical system is also widened, but always! limited by this frontier of this logical thinking. It's all about set theory. You'd be God because you would post the logical laws from an 'outside set'. It's like the lucky numbers. Computer can create them, but these aren't really lucky numbers, because it needs a data on which it has to refer to. And this data it gets from an 'outside set'(the user=the human). The computer would first think(if it were intelligent enough) why it shall be this date, this date which he was given by the user, but he thinks it is logically. And that it how i think of life and God. That God is in an 'outside set'.
QUOTE
The negation of this is not 'nothing is a goat', but rather
2: It is not the case that for every x, if x is a thing, then x is a goat
2: It is not the case that for every x, if x is a thing, then x is a goat
But if you say that, you automatically say that between the choices everything and nothing there IS something between. At the end, it is a question of how many events(theory of propabilities) you define and which you allow.
But when you say that the negation 'it's not the case that everything is a goat' is true, the statement 'it IS the case that 'nothing is a goat''(which is one event of many of the statement that 'it's not the case that everything is a goat') is also true at the same time, but this can't be combined with the statement that 'it's the case that almost everything is a goat'(which is also another event of the case that 'it's not the case that everything is a goat), and that is paradox!
QUOTE
But it's the foundation of philosophy and must be at least basically understood to really get into the meat of philosophy.
Hope that these laws which were stated will be correct for the future(when they're not fully correct nowadays, or even were in the past)........
The laws of logic are meant to be timeless just like mathematics. Remember that it is a tool not an actual philosophical system. You cannot actually define the world simply by studying logic, just like you cannot define the world by just studying mathematics. Other factors come into play to use these tools to allow us to be reasonable.
No, I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the problem. I am simply stating that to say 'light is matter and has no matter' is not necessarily a 'p & ~p' statement. As such it does not go against the law of contradiction. Remember my burden is only to really show that the real world statement you presented is not of the form p & ~p thereby not allowing for an actual example of contradiction. Now, you can simply deny this and have contradictions, but I would say that would be unwise.
I’ll give a more common sense defense. What if there were contradictions? This would cause serious problems with communication. At any given point there may be statements that are in fact false at the same time as true. This would be confusing and cause language to be nearly impossible. I may say, ‘this is water’, but given that a statement of the form p may also at the same time be ~p if we deny the law of contradiction, that statement may also mean ‘this is not water’. How do you know what I am actually saying? Which one do I mean?
This causes a problem of ‘privatizing’ language to the point where there is no way we can understand one another. At any point I may mean the contradiction of what I say or rather the contradiction may be true. For this reason I stipulate that the law of contradiction is true and timelessly true. It is as timelessly true as the statement ‘2+2=2+2’. There is nothing that will actually change that statement over time. You can change the symbols all you want, but the statement itself is true.
As far as changing definitions, that is the nature of science. When I say that there may be a matter1 and a matter2, I am not saying that there is a scientifically new type of matter. I am simply saying that the definition of matter is not being defined properly and must be refined to include the anomalous element. We don't need to change the symbol 'matter', but there are in fact two different metaphysical definitions to which we refer which is why the statement is not of the form ‘p & ~p’.
Any statement of the form 'p & ~p' is false at all times. The statement you provided is not of that form, therefore it may be true on empirical grounds. That is the nature of science. We often find out new properties to things, which change our perception, but it does not change the tool of logical structure.
As far as the goat:
1: nothing is a goat
2: it is not the case that everything is a goat
Statement 2 does not imply statement 1. Statement 2 simply states that there may or may not be classes of non-goats. Statement 1 states that nothing can be of the goat class. With statement 2 we have a class called ‘things’ which the predicate ‘goat’ is not always ascribed. With statement 1 we have a class called ‘things’ which is never predicated by ‘goat’.
So, with statement 2, we can say that it is possible for some things to have ‘goat’ as a predicate and some things where ‘goat’ is not a predicate. It may be the case that nothing has the predicate ‘goats’ whatsoever, but in our world, we do have things that have ‘goats’ as a predicate.
Now since the negation of ‘everything is a goat’ is actually ‘it is not the case that everything is a goat’, it is possible that some things are goats and some things are not goats.
No, I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the problem. I am simply stating that to say 'light is matter and has no matter' is not necessarily a 'p & ~p' statement. As such it does not go against the law of contradiction. Remember my burden is only to really show that the real world statement you presented is not of the form p & ~p thereby not allowing for an actual example of contradiction. Now, you can simply deny this and have contradictions, but I would say that would be unwise.
I’ll give a more common sense defense. What if there were contradictions? This would cause serious problems with communication. At any given point there may be statements that are in fact false at the same time as true. This would be confusing and cause language to be nearly impossible. I may say, ‘this is water’, but given that a statement of the form p may also at the same time be ~p if we deny the law of contradiction, that statement may also mean ‘this is not water’. How do you know what I am actually saying? Which one do I mean?
This causes a problem of ‘privatizing’ language to the point where there is no way we can understand one another. At any point I may mean the contradiction of what I say or rather the contradiction may be true. For this reason I stipulate that the law of contradiction is true and timelessly true. It is as timelessly true as the statement ‘2+2=2+2’. There is nothing that will actually change that statement over time. You can change the symbols all you want, but the statement itself is true.
As far as changing definitions, that is the nature of science. When I say that there may be a matter1 and a matter2, I am not saying that there is a scientifically new type of matter. I am simply saying that the definition of matter is not being defined properly and must be refined to include the anomalous element. We don't need to change the symbol 'matter', but there are in fact two different metaphysical definitions to which we refer which is why the statement is not of the form ‘p & ~p’.
Any statement of the form 'p & ~p' is false at all times. The statement you provided is not of that form, therefore it may be true on empirical grounds. That is the nature of science. We often find out new properties to things, which change our perception, but it does not change the tool of logical structure.
As far as the goat:
QUOTE
But when you say that the negation 'it's not the case that everything is a goat' is true, the statement 'it IS the case that 'nothing is a goat''(which is one event of many of the statement that 'it's not the case that everything is a goat') is also true at the same time, but this can't be combined with the statement that 'it's the case that almost everything is a goat'(which is also another event of the case that 'it's not the case that everything is a goat[/b]), and that is paradox!
1: nothing is a goat
2: it is not the case that everything is a goat
Statement 2 does not imply statement 1. Statement 2 simply states that there may or may not be classes of non-goats. Statement 1 states that nothing can be of the goat class. With statement 2 we have a class called ‘things’ which the predicate ‘goat’ is not always ascribed. With statement 1 we have a class called ‘things’ which is never predicated by ‘goat’.
So, with statement 2, we can say that it is possible for some things to have ‘goat’ as a predicate and some things where ‘goat’ is not a predicate. It may be the case that nothing has the predicate ‘goats’ whatsoever, but in our world, we do have things that have ‘goats’ as a predicate.
Now since the negation of ‘everything is a goat’ is actually ‘it is not the case that everything is a goat’, it is possible that some things are goats and some things are not goats.
QUOTE
You cannot actually define the world simply by studying logic, just like you cannot define the world by just studying mathematics. Other factors come into play to use these tools to allow us to be reasonable
Yes, logic only can exist in a perfect or absolute world, where all factors are the same, it's just like in business. The lots of fuctions are nice to see an mathematically correct, but there are so many factors that are added in the real world.
QUOTE
Remember my burden is only to really show that the real world statement you presented is not of the form p & ~p thereby not allowing for an actual example of contradiction. Now, you can simply deny this and have contradictions, but I would say that would be unwise.
okay, i won't cause you any problems more....
QUOTE
I’ll give a more common sense defense. What if there were contradictions? This would cause serious problems with communication.
yes, that's why i said. We use logic because it's the most the language to us, cause of the more or less thruth of the events that this logical system can forecast on earth for us humans...
QUOTE
At any given point there may be statements that are in fact false at the same time as true.
...like this funny statement:
1. A Cretenian says: "All Cretenian do lie!"
QUOTE
When I say that there may be a matter1 and a matter2, I am not saying that there is a scientifically new type of matter.
Yes, but i mean that you indirectly say that you can add as many kinds of matter as you want because in logic they already exist in your system. And that is... how shall i call it... "high-nosed".
QUOTE
Statement 2 simply states that there may or may not be classes of non-goats.
my üroblem was that i thought that this sentence states that there may and may not be classes of non-goats....
QUOTE
Now since the negation of ‘everything is a goat’ is actually ‘it is not the case that everything is a goat’, it is possible that some things are goats and some things are not goats.
Yes, but with this negation, it's also possible that nothing is a goat...
It's funny, I forgot about this topic 
. I guess that's what happens when you take a short tour of Spam Central.
Anyway, I wish I was as good at the axiomatic items in logical reasoning, but I'm not. A good person to read is W. V. O. Quine. He has a good general introduction to philosophic logic Methods of Logic and he also does a lot beyond general logic and goes into methematical logic (an area that I'm not competant to enter).
One thing to note about Quine (at least the version I have) is that he sometimes uses a different system of grouping terms than parentheses. I can't remember the name of the person who started it, but I believe it's a Polish system. I was confused at first, but began to see it's simplicity and get it. Basically instead of parenthesis he uses dots.
. I guess that's what happens when you take a short tour of Spam Central. Anyway, I wish I was as good at the axiomatic items in logical reasoning, but I'm not. A good person to read is W. V. O. Quine. He has a good general introduction to philosophic logic Methods of Logic and he also does a lot beyond general logic and goes into methematical logic (an area that I'm not competant to enter).
One thing to note about Quine (at least the version I have) is that he sometimes uses a different system of grouping terms than parentheses. I can't remember the name of the person who started it, but I believe it's a Polish system. I was confused at first, but began to see it's simplicity and get it. Basically instead of parenthesis he uses dots.
im gonna buy this book^^ thx!
It's a solid logic text and will give you something to use to springboard into further work if you want.
If you have trouble with the "dot" groupings, let me know, I got used to it now and it's not too tough. There's also some info on the system in the intro of "Principia Mathematica" by Russel and Whitehead I believe.
If you have trouble with the "dot" groupings, let me know, I got used to it now and it's not too tough. There's also some info on the system in the intro of "Principia Mathematica" by Russel and Whitehead I believe.
well, wasn't sure whether this goes here or in the angst topic, but let me share with everybody the first line of tonight's hegel reading:
"Self-consciousness is in and for itself in and through being in and for itself for another self-consciousness; that is, it is only as something acknowledged, or recognized." - Phenomenology of Spirit
whaat? whaat?? @__@;; the kant reading doesn't look like smooth sailing either. auuugh.
"Self-consciousness is in and for itself in and through being in and for itself for another self-consciousness; that is, it is only as something acknowledged, or recognized." - Phenomenology of Spirit
whaat? whaat?? @__@;; the kant reading doesn't look like smooth sailing either. auuugh.
The Kant seems easier. 
I do like philosophy, I tried to read some Nietsche, wich was okay, and Sartre. Which was boring, but his point was clear from the start (and that was enough for me to explain it in French class).
Still, most philosophers tend to writen in absurdly long phrases with words that have too many meanings, so in the end, I didn't get a thing about it. But the ideas are interesting. And I also think about life myself. Just because I can. Philosophy can be scary, really. Like, what if the Matrix is true.
The more you know, the more you realize what you don't know.
Still, most philosophers tend to writen in absurdly long phrases with words that have too many meanings, so in the end, I didn't get a thing about it. But the ideas are interesting. And I also think about life myself. Just because I can. Philosophy can be scary, really. Like, what if the Matrix is true.
The more you know, the more you realize what you don't know.
The more you know, the more confused you get.
Ignorance is bliss.
Ignorance is bliss.
Hegel is hard to understand in general. I actuall never got into Hegel as he's part of the 'continental' tradition and really doesn't hold much value with regards to anything I wanted to study. There are people who specialized in Hegel and don't understand what he was talking about, so don't feel bad
Kant will be much better and in my opinion is far more important to read and understand. His name will come up often in future studies.
Kant will be much better and in my opinion is far more important to read and understand. His name will come up often in future studies.
Through with Hume! (dances)
Now on to Rousseau. I'm reading Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Its interesting. His view of society is the opposite of every philospher I've read so far. He's a riot
re: Kant: I've only read the very brief "What is Enlightenment" so far, but my class will be reading more from him soon. (looking forward to it)
-I agree, the "germanic" syntax can get scary sometimes.
-I think the Matrix was inspired by Descartes (well the "let's create our own universe" or "everything I believe to be true actually may not be" aspects)
Now on to Rousseau. I'm reading Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Its interesting. His view of society is the opposite of every philospher I've read so far. He's a riot
re: Kant: I've only read the very brief "What is Enlightenment" so far, but my class will be reading more from him soon. (looking forward to it)
QUOTE
Still, most philosophers tend to writen in absurdly long phrases with words that have too many meanings, so in the end, I didn't get a thing about it. But the ideas are interesting. And I also think about life myself. Just because I can. Philosophy can be scary, really. Like, what if the Matrix is true.
-I agree, the "germanic" syntax can get scary sometimes.
-I think the Matrix was inspired by Descartes
(well the "let's create our own universe" or "everything I believe to be true actually may not be" aspects)
Descartes also was the guy who said 'you can only be sure of one thing: that you can't be sure about anything', and 'Je pense, donc je suis.' We read a short thing about him, I could follow his way of thinking... It seems there's an ultimate matrix collection, including a disc with philospphers talking. Heh.
Matrix concept has been around for a long time. In Descartes time, it was whether or not the world existed in the mind of God. Augustine had given a similar proof that Descarte gave which was much earlier
I like Matrix, and accually thought that the matrix was a real place. Anyway that is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
hey i beilve either the matix is real or everyone here in this world is lust trapped in their minds and when they die or mistrious they are freed from their mind or the matrix...i like the matrix theory is bettter
I'm going to open this topic up to include religious discussion and challenges. If you want to discuss this or have a problem with something that was posted elsewhere and want to discuss it, please put it in here and we can talk about it. This way we don't have debates in the middle of fun threads.
Good idea,
If there was a God then why did he kill all of those people in india and sorounding countrys?
And if there was a God then why are there wars?
If there was a God then why did he kill all of those people in india and sorounding countrys?
And if there was a God then why are there wars?
Why do you blame God for humans' stupidity?
QUOTE(le monkey @ Jan 28 2005, 03:23 PM)
If there was a God then why did he kill all of those people in india and sorounding countrys?
And if there was a God then why are there wars?
And if there was a God then why are there wars?
[snapback]100037[/snapback]
..in order to punish humanity!!
I know that god is either a bisexual transvestite or there is a god and godess both bisexual
think about it how else could we have been made in god's image
think about it how else could we have been made in god's image
QUOTE(dragonofchaos @ Jan 28 2005, 05:25 PM)
I know that god is either a bisexual transvestite or there is a god and godess both bisexual
think about it how else could we have been made in god's image
think about it how else could we have been made in god's image
[snapback]100356[/snapback]
Sex is only necessary for procreation. God didn't need to procreate to make humans as we are not "little gods" who will grow up to be God. So, there is no need for any sexuality to be ascribed to God based on the production of human beings. God used another method to create humans exclusive of sexuality.
Hey, think about it says that we are made in gods image right, so I concluded that god has to be a bisexual transvestite meaing he is both man and woman, and also both gay and straight. Or in other words god is everthing and nothing
You're assuming sexuality where it's not necessary. Basically you're anthropomorphizing God needlessly.
There is no reason to think that the image is reversable (i.e. God has the same image as humans). Humans made in God's image can be opaque in that humans are an image of God, but God is not an image of humans. So sexuality in human terms does not necessarily apply to God based on image alone.
There is no reason to think that the image is reversable (i.e. God has the same image as humans). Humans made in God's image can be opaque in that humans are an image of God, but God is not an image of humans. So sexuality in human terms does not necessarily apply to God based on image alone.
hey in one of the first chapters in the old testiment it says that god made humans in his image therefor saying god has a sex i am just saying the only logical explanation because eve was made from adam
QUOTE(dragonofchaos @ Jan 28 2005, 06:03 PM)
hey in one of the first chapters in the old testiment it says that god made humans in his image therefor saying god has a sex i am just saying the only logical explanation because eve was made from adam
[snapback]100384[/snapback]
Wow, that's a big leap of faith and a massive assumption that isn't implied in any way in the text. I can make a piece of pottery in my image without having sex
you just said compared humans to pottery and yourslef to god
QUOTE(dragonofchaos @ Jan 28 2005, 06:18 PM)
you just said compared humans to pottery and yourslef to god
[snapback]100393[/snapback]
As far as creation is concerned, then I could be like pottery. God can just create the elements and piece them together. The only hard part is the soul, which still wouldn't be hard for God based on the fact that according to Genesis, God created the universe ex nihilo
Why argue with a moron, arche?
QUOTE(Gashole @ Jan 28 2005, 07:05 PM)
Why argue with a moron, arche?
[snapback]100439[/snapback]
I enjoy waiting for the next response as it usually gets worse and worse as they go on
I guess at heart I'm a preditor when it comes to thinking.
People always use thier best ammo at the beggining
Eventually you're only going to get frustrated because his reply won't even have anything to do with what you say. I've had some experience with someone like that.
I've seen that happen too. usually if the person isn't being very good about arguing their point well, I'll just tell them to come up with a cogent argument properly on point or they can talk to themselves.
Remember, I was a philosophy major, I'm very used to stupid arguments and dead end arguments.
Remember, I was a philosophy major, I'm very used to stupid arguments and dead end arguments.
QUOTE(dragonofchaos @ Jan 28 2005, 11:25 PM)
think about it how else could we have been made in god's image
[snapback]100356[/snapback]
with "after the image of God", the Bible means that God has the ability to create and we humans have it too for example...
QUOTE(Quistis88 @ Jan 28 2005, 10:43 PM)
And since I have nothing else to contribute, I'd like to say that according to St. Augustine, God is timeless (although, please correct me if I'm wrong). I'd like to know more about that. Without the world, does time exist? Therefore, when God created the world, was Time also created simultaneously?
Yes, maybe I'm trying to throw you kids off track. It's funny when it happens to trains. *shrugs*
Yes, maybe I'm trying to throw you kids off track. It's funny when it happens to trains. *shrugs*
[snapback]100772[/snapback]
This was posted in the "god" topic in SC, but I would like to elevate it to a more appropriate location
Augustine's view of time is interesting. In essense he is trying to solve the problem of what was God doing before he created heaven and Earth. Of course the joke anser, which I'm sure I've mentioned before, is that God was creating Hell for those who inquire into such mysteries
For Augustine, God is eternal, and therefore, timeless. This basically meant that time did not exist until the world was created (something that actually has a beginning and end). Time then passes from future to past via the present as something that flows.
So, because time can only exist when something temporal exists, Augustine concluded that the question "what was God doing before he created heaven and earth?" is a silly question because there was no "before" with respect to God and the earth.
I've got to go now, but I'll add to this later. Any thoughts about it or corrections to my interpretation of Augustine is appriciated
. I just didn't want this idea to fall away in the muddy waters of the "God" topic in SC.
Thanks for rescuing this subject from that sewer of a SC, arche. As of right now, I have nothing much to add. Perhaps later, when I can actually think straight. Thank you for clarifying.
As of right now, I have nothing much to add. Perhaps later, when I can actually think straight. Thank you for clarifying.
Yes, I'll probably elaborate on some items later myself. I'm a bit drained after my charismatic performance and then horrible drive home. I've been fighting time and now I'm not ready to talk about time 
I do plan to review a few readings on time, however, as it's pretty interesting subject
I do plan to review a few readings on time, however, as it's pretty interesting subject
Typing up my Logic notes at the moment on "Genus & Difference", and I found something I don't quite understand entirely. Here are the definitions given by my professor:
SUB-CLASS = X is a sub-class of Y (only if all the members of X are members of Y)
PROPER SUB-CLASS = X is a proper sub-class of Y (only if X is a sub-class of Y, and Y has members that X lacks)
SPECIES = The proper sub-class of the genus. The difference is the attribute that distinguishes members of a genus species from the members of the other species in that same genus.
Also, what does it mean by "members"? It's probably really simple, but I just don't get it right now . . . *bangs head on desk*
SUB-CLASS = X is a sub-class of Y (only if all the members of X are members of Y)
PROPER SUB-CLASS = X is a proper sub-class of Y (only if X is a sub-class of Y, and Y has members that X lacks)
SPECIES = The proper sub-class of the genus. The difference is the attribute that distinguishes members of a genus species from the members of the other species in that same genus.
Also, what does it mean by "members"? It's probably really simple, but I just don't get it right now . . . *bangs head on desk*
First: Ah, you changed your avatar . I like it, but it was a shock. For the longest time, when I watched FMA, I would think of you when I saw Riza
I can help you with some, but not everything here. I looked for Proper Sub-Class in several of my logic books and didn't really see it specifically stated as other than class.
Member is referring to that which is within a class (instance of a class). For instance, the Empire State Building is a member of the Skyscraper class.
Classes and subclasses are relative terms. A class is a collection of objects that have something in common. The class of skyscrapers consist of buildings that are a certain hight. The class of tringles is made up of all different types of polygons with three angles.
Now, within the class of triangles are the sub-classes equilateral, isosceles, and scalene triangles. Each of these sub-classes have members that represent the different types of triangles.
This is basically a genus - species relationship. In logic this is a relative relationship where the genus is a class that may have species or sub-classes.
So, above, substitute equilateral triangle for X and triangle for Y and it should make sense: All members of equilateral triangles are members of triangles
I don't know if that helps or hurts. I probably could clean this up, but I'll wait to see if you have other questions
. I like it, but it was a shock. For the longest time, when I watched FMA, I would think of you when I saw Riza QUOTE(Quistis88 @ Feb 1 2005, 04:17 PM)
Typing up my Logic notes at the moment on "Genus & Difference", and I found something I don't quite understand entirely. Here are the definitions given by my professor:
SUB-CLASS = X is a sub-class of Y (only if all the members of X are members of Y)
PROPER SUB-CLASS = X is a proper sub-class of Y (only if X is a sub-class of Y, and Y has members that X lacks)
SPECIES = The proper sub-class of the genus. The difference is the attribute that distinguishes members of a genus species from the members of the other species in that same genus.
Also, what does it mean by "members"? It's probably really simple, but I just don't get it right now . . . *bangs head on desk*
SUB-CLASS = X is a sub-class of Y (only if all the members of X are members of Y)
PROPER SUB-CLASS = X is a proper sub-class of Y (only if X is a sub-class of Y, and Y has members that X lacks)
SPECIES = The proper sub-class of the genus. The difference is the attribute that distinguishes members of a genus species from the members of the other species in that same genus.
Also, what does it mean by "members"? It's probably really simple, but I just don't get it right now . . . *bangs head on desk*
[snapback]104018[/snapback]
I can help you with some, but not everything here. I looked for Proper Sub-Class in several of my logic books and didn't really see it specifically stated as other than class.
Member is referring to that which is within a class (instance of a class). For instance, the Empire State Building is a member of the Skyscraper class.
Classes and subclasses are relative terms. A class is a collection of objects that have something in common. The class of skyscrapers consist of buildings that are a certain hight. The class of tringles is made up of all different types of polygons with three angles.
Now, within the class of triangles are the sub-classes equilateral, isosceles, and scalene triangles. Each of these sub-classes have members that represent the different types of triangles.
This is basically a genus - species relationship. In logic this is a relative relationship where the genus is a class that may have species or sub-classes.
So, above, substitute equilateral triangle for X and triangle for Y and it should make sense: All members of equilateral triangles are members of triangles
I don't know if that helps or hurts. I probably could clean this up, but I'll wait to see if you have other questions
Ohh, I just experienced instantaneous comprehension. You explain things so much better than my professor (I don't really like him . . . ). I understand now, and have no further questions at the moment.
Haha, thank you. Nice to know that people think of me outside of the forums.
I understand now, and have no further questions at the moment.QUOTE(arche @ Feb 1 2005, 05:18 PM)
First: Ah, you changed your avatar . I like it, but it was a shock. For the longest time, when I watched FMA, I would think of you when I saw Riza
. I like it, but it was a shock. For the longest time, when I watched FMA, I would think of you when I saw Riza [snapback]104175[/snapback]
Haha, thank you. Nice to know that people think of me outside of the forums.
QUOTE(Quistis88 @ Feb 1 2005, 07:27 PM)
Ohh, I just experienced instantaneous comprehension. You explain things so much better than my professor (I don't really like him . . . ). I understand now, and have no further questions at the moment.
Haha, thank you. Nice to know that people think of me outside of the forums.
I understand now, and have no further questions at the moment.QUOTE(arche @ Feb 1 2005, 05:18 PM)
First: Ah, you changed your avatar . I like it, but it was a shock. For the longest time, when I watched FMA, I would think of you when I saw Riza
. I like it, but it was a shock. For the longest time, when I watched FMA, I would think of you when I saw Riza [snapback]104175[/snapback]
Haha, thank you. Nice to know that people think of me outside of the forums.
[snapback]104188[/snapback]
Wow, I'm very proud of myself
...Actually this stuff gets into set theory, so it can get much more complex especially if you want to get into the actual symbolism, which I don't Yes, I always see Riza shooting those pistols as you killing n00b topics
yeah i was thought of riza as you in the anime it is just so...special i think is what some of my friends would say Quis
nya...^.^~
there are also classes in the subject of germanistic(which is the study of the german language):
(der=masculin;
die=feminine;
das=neutrum)
that the word german word DRINK is a class which is the genus neutrum...
and ALCOHOLIC DRINKS is a sub-class where almost every alcoholic drink is genus masculin(like der Schnaps, der Wein, etc)...
while NON-ALCOHOLIC DRINKS is also a sub-class where the generi are very different(like: die milch, das Wasser, etc...)
i also looked it up in the internet, but i wasn't sure if it was the thing you searched, quis
P.S: ...Quis... i really thought, you were the real mother of BlingO_o
arche... solipsism is dangerous^^~
there are also classes in the subject of germanistic(which is the study of the german language):
(der=masculin;
die=feminine;
das=neutrum)
that the word german word DRINK is a class which is the genus neutrum...
and ALCOHOLIC DRINKS is a sub-class where almost every alcoholic drink is genus masculin(like der Schnaps, der Wein, etc)...
while NON-ALCOHOLIC DRINKS is also a sub-class where the generi are very different(like: die milch, das Wasser, etc...)
i also looked it up in the internet, but i wasn't sure if it was the thing you searched, quis
P.S: ...Quis... i really thought, you were the real mother of BlingO_o
arche... solipsism is dangerous^^~
QUOTE(Prinz_Zoisit @ Feb 2 2005, 08:10 AM)
arche... solipsism is dangerous^^~
[snapback]104779[/snapback]
Yes it is. I will admit that I've accidentally argued myself into solipsism before when I think about minds. It's very easy place to go, but not practical nor realistic. The main reason to not believe it is really common sense, but otherwise, you can easily fall into solipsism if you're not careful.
For some reason I think solipsism is the philosophical choice of the depressed and lonely
Thank you for the additional information, Prinz. Much appreciated.
Wow . . . either Bling and I are really good at this mother-daughter thing, or I act way too old.
Much appreciated.QUOTE(Prinz_Zoisit @ Feb 2 2005, 06:10 AM)
P.S: ...Quis... i really thought, you were the real mother of BlingO_o
[snapback]104779[/snapback]
Wow . . . either Bling and I are really good at this mother-daughter thing, or I act way too old.
QUOTE(arche @ Feb 2 2005, 09:56 AM)
QUOTE(Prinz_Zoisit @ Feb 2 2005, 08:10 AM)
arche... solipsism is dangerous^^~
[snapback]104779[/snapback]
Yes it is. I will admit that I've accidentally argued myself into solipsism before when I think about minds. It's very easy place to go, but not practical nor realistic. The main reason to not believe it is really common sense, but otherwise, you can easily fall into solipsism if you're not careful.
For some reason I think solipsism is the philosophical choice of the depressed and lonely
[snapback]104818[/snapback]
Random Question: Does a believer of solipsism believe in some divine creator? Or do they think that they were spontaneously created sometime after the universe began?
Actually, since they don't think anything exists besides their essence, could they believe in a universe existing around them?
(because if they thought an infinite universe existed, they couldn't state with certainty that they are the only existence.) They don't claim to be all-knowing (or do they, Arche???)
(I'm sleep-deprived and confused, so I'll stop now)
Solipsism can believe that all is within the mind of God or some other illusion. Basically there can be some 'extra universe' element that can exist, but for all practical purposes, my mind is all that actually exists. My mind was given memories of the past and the world appears around me, but it is all a trick to make me believe other minds exist.
Solipsism really happens when you begin to challenge other people's mind too much. Because you cannot with absolute certainty state that others have minds, you can potentially slip into the solipsist view where you are the only one with a mind and all others only appear to have minds.
Solipsism really happens when you begin to challenge other people's mind too much. Because you cannot with absolute certainty state that others have minds, you can potentially slip into the solipsist view where you are the only one with a mind and all others only appear to have minds.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.