Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

GE Morton wrote: July 24th, 2022, 10:24 am Similarly, evils have properties not true of all things undesirable. Those additional properties of crows and evils are something more than than the properties of birds and undesirable things, respectively. Those additional properties are what endow "evil" with moral significance.
Pattern-chaser wrote: July 25th, 2022, 11:14 am OK, what are these aspects of 'evil' that are not true of all things that are undesirable, the aspects that give rise to moral connotations?
GE Morton wrote: July 25th, 2022, 2:19 pm "Evils" are things that kill, or maim, or inflict substantial material loss, such as a wildfire (or arsonist) which destroys your house.
All of the things you describe are undesirable, but I really can't see a moral (or any other) dimension to them.

...

Unless you refer to a/the person who has done these things? Their intent (etc) might well have a moral component.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by GE Morton »

Pattern-chaser wrote: July 26th, 2022, 6:32 am
All of the things you describe are undesirable, but I really can't see a moral (or any other) dimension to them.
"Evil (noun):
1a: the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing
b: a cosmic evil force
2: something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil

Evils have a moral component when inflicted by a moral agent. But they are still evils if inflicted by nature. Since God is regarded as a moral agent, then they have a moral component when they are inflicted by him. Hence the "problem of evil."
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by GE Morton »

3017Metaphysician wrote: July 25th, 2022, 8:37 pm
Metaphysically, we can say something about those things.
What things? (It would help if you would quote and respond to specific statements, rather than quoting an entire post and commenting. Makes it hard to determine just which claims you're challenging).
And we do so not only through the observations of paradox and contradiction from reality itself, but through the finitude of logic itself. Ironically, SB alluded to that in his post just a few back... .
There are no "contradictions" in "reality." There are only contradictions in some propositions about reality. BTW, if by "SB" you're referring to Sy Borg, it should be "her post," not "his post".
"There is at least one true proposition" Call this proposition A. Is A necessarily true? Suppose I contend that A is false. Call that proposition B: "A is false".

But if A is false, so is B, because B is a proposition. And if A if false there are no true propositions. So A must be true. It is therefore logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions.
Agree.
If there exists necessary propositions, then the notion of a necessary Being is not obviously absurd hence: the ontological/cosmological arguments.

No?
No. You can't glide from an argument about propositions to a conclusion about "beings." You have a 4-term fallacy going there (unless you perhaps count propositions as a species of "beings").
But back to consciousness and subconsiousness; is it wrong (using SB's word) or inacurate to say in the driving while daydreaming riddle "I was driving and not driving"? Or maybe "I was sort-of driving"?
"I was driving and not driving" is necessarily false, because it is self-contradictory. What might be true is, "I was driving but not thinking about driving," or something of that sort.
Remember almost all of formal logic relate to either/or; not both/and. The nature of realty or existence is more often than not both/and. That's what metaphysician's do
"The nature of realty or existence is more often than not both/and."

That is a proposition about reality. It is too vague to assign it any truth value --- a problem with much of what metaphysicians say about "reality."
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

GE Morton wrote: July 26th, 2022, 12:24 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 25th, 2022, 8:37 pm
Metaphysically, we can say something about those things.
What things? (It would help if you would quote and respond to specific statements, rather than quoting an entire post and commenting. Makes it hard to determine just which claims you're challenging).

GE!

There's a whole host of things-in-themselves from which we can try to describe, like the myriad of things from cognition itself/conscious phenomena, right?


And we do so not only through the observations of paradox and contradiction from reality itself, but through the finitude of logic itself. Ironically, SB alluded to that in his post just a few back... .
There are no "contradictions" in "reality." There are only contradictions in some propositions about reality. BTW, if by "SB" you're referring to Sy Borg, it should be "her post," not "his post".

Thank you for that qualification with respect to SB's gender! Are you suggesting that you understand the nature reality, you know, like the concept of a God would know?

"There is at least one true proposition" Call this proposition A. Is A necessarily true? Suppose I contend that A is false. Call that proposition B: "A is false".

But if A is false, so is B, because B is a proposition. And if A if false there are no true propositions. So A must be true. It is therefore logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions.
Agree.
If there exists necessary propositions, then the notion of a necessary Being is not obviously absurd hence: the ontological/cosmological arguments.

No?
No. You can't glide from an argument about propositions to a conclusion about "beings." You have a 4-term fallacy going there (unless you perhaps count propositions as a species of "beings").

Yes you can. You can because a priori logic allows us to, hence, the ontological/cosmological arguments. Just like mathematics (a priori/objective truth) allows us to discern some levels of reality, a priori logic does this too. Again, not a complete picture, but a picture painted in temporal-ness and finitude from which we can leap to concepts of impossibility, possibility, and necessity nonetheless.

Are you thinking that there are other means and methods to discern the nature of reality? Perhaps empiricism (experience) is that method which yields greater results. Of course, metaphysically, we know that most all physical theories start with synthetic a priori propositions that are subsequently tested. In that sense, I think neither of us would take exception to that methodology... . Some theories even start with huge 'leaps' of revelation that just 'arrive' in one's own stream of consciousness. Like mathematical genius, musical genius is a similar phenomena. But all of this stuff is metaphysical that may/may not be of interest to you, not sure. Much like the concept of God, the creative mind is quite a mysterious thing-in-itself. I hope some of that helps...

But back to consciousness and subconsciousness; is it wrong (using SB's word) or inacurate to say in the driving while daydreaming riddle "I was driving and not driving"? Or maybe "I was sort-of driving"?
"I was driving and not driving" is necessarily false, because it is self-contradictory. What might be true is, "I was driving but not thinking about driving," or something of that sort.
Remember almost all of formal logic relate to either/or; not both/and. The nature of realty or existence is more often than not both/and. That's what metaphysician's do
"The nature of realty or existence is more often than not both/and."

That is a proposition about reality. It is too vague to assign it any truth value --- a problem with much of what metaphysicians say about "reality."
GE, are suggesting consciousness and subconsciousness and the explanations and descriptions thereof are too vague? Well, in one sense you'd be pretty accurate of course. Much like the vagueness of both/and, there are many so-called grey areas in cognition itself (no pun intended). As discussed, not only are we limited to either/or descriptions/explanations to how the conscious-subconscious mind works, we have limited language that truly captures say, sentient experience from pure reason; left brain-right brain, will-intellect and so on.

With regard to the latter 'either/or" approach in trying to understand cognition and reality, here's a subject-object (metaphysical things-in-themselves) example I often use in trying to discern the primacy of the will or intellect (either/or logic):

"St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know."

- Voluntarism: in the modern metaphysical sense is a theory which explains the universe as emanating ultimately from some form of will. In a broader psychological sense, the term is applied to any theory which gives prominence to will (in opposition to intellect ). In this latter sense, but not in the former, the philosophy of Augustine, Anselm, William of Occam, and Scotus may be styled Voluntarism.

- Voluntarism is the theory that God or the ultimate nature of reality is to be conceived as some form of will (or conation). This theory is contrasted to intellectualism, which gives primacy to God's reason.

-According to intellectualism, choices of the will result from that which the intellect recognizes as good; the will itself is determined. For voluntarism, by contrast, it is the will which determines which objects are good, and the will itself is undetermined. Concerning the nature of heaven, intellectualists followed Aristotle's lead by seeing the final state of happiness as a state of contemplation. Voluntarism, by contrast, maintains that final happiness is an activity, specifically that of love.

-19th century voluntarism has its origin in Kant, particularly his doctrine of the "primacy of the practical over the pure reason." Intellectually, humans are incapable of knowing ultimate reality, but this need not and must not interfere with the duty of acting as though the spiritual character of this reality were certain.

GE, one take away there is that the answer to the either/or question about cognition is, that it's more than likely both/and. As such, in logical terms, an 'illogical mix' of will and intellect is all working together in the experience (and phenomenon) of Being. A vacillation of sorts that transcends things like logical either/or descriptions/concepts from the axioms of LEM, bivalence and so forth.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

GE Morton wrote: July 26th, 2022, 12:24 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 25th, 2022, 8:37 pm
Metaphysically, we can say something about those things.
What things? (It would help if you would quote and respond to specific statements, rather than quoting an entire post and commenting. Makes it hard to determine just which claims you're challenging).
And we do so not only through the observations of paradox and contradiction from reality itself, but through the finitude of logic itself. Ironically, SB alluded to that in his post just a few back... .
There are no "contradictions" in "reality." There are only contradictions in some propositions about reality. BTW, if by "SB" you're referring to Sy Borg, it should be "her post," not "his post".
"There is at least one true proposition" Call this proposition A. Is A necessarily true? Suppose I contend that A is false. Call that proposition B: "A is false".

But if A is false, so is B, because B is a proposition. And if A if false there are no true propositions. So A must be true. It is therefore logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions.
Agree.
If there exists necessary propositions, then the notion of a necessary Being is not obviously absurd hence: the ontological/cosmological arguments.

No?
No. You can't glide from an argument about propositions to a conclusion about "beings." You have a 4-term fallacy going there (unless you perhaps count propositions as a species of "beings").
But back to consciousness and subconsiousness; is it wrong (using SB's word) or inacurate to say in the driving while daydreaming riddle "I was driving and not driving"? Or maybe "I was sort-of driving"?
"I was driving and not driving" is necessarily false, because it is self-contradictory. What might be true is, "I was driving but not thinking about driving," or something of that sort.


GE, sorry I missed this comment/reply that you made above. Yes, driving and not driving is self-contradictory. That's the point. Right?

Otherwise, using logic, our premise is that either the 'subconsciousness mind' was driving, or our 'conscious mind' was driving. But the 'reality' is that we were doing both at the same time. In this instance, we were on the beach yet still driving, ran through a red light and may/may not have survived.

Perhaps the question to monder is, which mind was driving and which mind was at the beach...and which mind allowed us to think it was real when it really wasn't. This may also be similar to the unreality of time, but that's another metaphysical thing-in-itself,
Remember almost all of formal logic relate to either/or; not both/and. The nature of realty or existence is more often than not both/and. That's what metaphysician's do
"The nature of realty or existence is more often than not both/and."

That is a proposition about reality. It is too vague to assign it any truth value --- a problem with much of what metaphysicians say about "reality."
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

To circle back to part of the OP (a priori logic/logical necessity/contingency) here's a simple/succinct/basic sound bite:
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

3017Metaphysician wrote: July 26th, 2022, 3:28 pm To circle back to part of the OP (a priori logic/logical necessity/contingency) here's a simple/succinct/basic sound bite:


Attempting an answer to the video question of whether the concept of a God is a necessary truth or a contingent truth, and consistent with the so-called rules of logic, my answer is:

Cosmological God=contingent truth (cosmological argument/cause and effect)
Ontological God=necessary truth (Ontological argument/a static-eternal-unchanging-objective Being)

The challenge is ( as some theoretical physicists contemplate), how can we reconcile a unchanging Being in a world of change/contingency.

If interested (and I need to get a commission cause I drop his name too much LOL) Paul Davies' the Mind of God is a good reference/resource for theoretical physics. Perhaps I should suggest that read for the Book Club submission....
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by GE Morton »

3017Metaphysician wrote: July 26th, 2022, 1:27 pm
GE Morton wrote: July 26th, 2022, 12:24 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 25th, 2022, 8:37 pm
Metaphysically, we can say something about those things.
What things? (It would help if you would quote and respond to specific statements, rather than quoting an entire post and commenting. Makes it hard to determine just which claims you're challenging).
GE!

There's a whole host of things-in-themselves from which we can try to describe, like the myriad of things from cognition itself/conscious phenomena, right?
Yes, of course. But above you spoke of saying something "metaphysical" about "those things." Which specific things did you have in mind there?
There are no "contradictions" in "reality." There are only contradictions in some propositions about reality.
Are you suggesting that you understand the nature reality, you know, like the concept of a God would know?[/b]
No. I said nothing there about God. I said that contradictions are properties of some propositions, not about any component or aspect of "reality" other than propositions. You're trying to apply that term to phenomena where it has no application, rather like Chomsky's "Green ideas sleep furiously." Ideas don't have colors, don't sleep. The universe or "reality" doesn't have contradictions; those are the wrong category of subjects for that property. Only what we might SAY about it can have contradictions.
No. You can't glide from an argument about propositions to a conclusion about "beings." You have a 4-term fallacy going there (unless you perhaps count propositions as a species of "beings").

Yes you can. You can because a priori logic allows us to, hence, the ontological/cosmological arguments.
What is this "a priori logic" to which you refer? Are you referring to Kant's categories? None of those lead to a "logically necessary being." And you can't derive such a "being" from the existence of logically necessary propositions. Any "a priori logic" which leads you to that conclusion is fallacious; it commits the 4-term fallacy.

The ontological argument is also fallacious, to the extent it reaches conclusions about "beings." What we can do is construct an argument such as the following:

1. Something exists.

2. Whatever exists has a cause, e.g., if X exists, then it had some cause Y. Hence Y exists, which requires some cause Z. Etc.

3. Hence there necessarily exists an infinite chain of causes.

Premise #2 is an assumption. If it is false then the conclusion would not follow. But it does follow if #2 is true. We have no way of knowing whether #2 is true, but explanation depends upon it being true. So we assume it is.
Just like mathematics (a priori/objective truth) allows us to discern some levels of reality, a priori logic does this too. Again, not a complete picture, but a picture painted in temporal-ness and finitude from which we can leap to concepts of impossibility, possibility, and necessity nonetheless.
Well, no. Mathematics does not "allow us to to discern some levels of reality," other than mathematical reality. The only means we have of "discerning (other) levels (features, aspects, components, etc.) of reality" is by observing (experiencing) them.

But "reality" is ambiguous. When we use that word we (generally) have one of two meanings in mind, 1) subjective reality, i.e., what we directly experience, and "external reality," a reality independent from us which we postulate to explain subjective experience. The latter "reality" is a conceptual model of a possible reality, which "stands in" for Kant's noumenal reality, about which we can know nothing.

To be sure, there are numerous other imagined "realities" mystics, Platonic philosophers, religionists, even poets and fiction writers, have conjured from the depths of the their own minds, but which have no empirical basis and no explanatory power. Some of those have entertainment value, but no other intellectual utility.
Remember almost all of formal logic relate to either/or; not both/and. The nature of realty or existence is more often than not both/and. That's what metaphysician's do
"The nature of realty or existence is more often than not both/and."
That is a proposition about reality. It is too vague to assign it any truth value --- a problem with much of what metaphysicians say about "reality."
GE, are suggesting consciousness and subconsciousness and the explanations and descriptions thereof are too vague?
Huh? My comment above related to your claim that ""The nature of realty or existence is more often than not both/and." I said that was too vague. Where does consciousness/subconsciousness enter the picture? There is nothing vague about those concepts.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

GE Morton wrote: July 26th, 2022, 7:57 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 26th, 2022, 1:27 pm
GE Morton wrote: July 26th, 2022, 12:24 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 25th, 2022, 8:37 pm
Metaphysically, we can say something about those things.
What things? (It would help if you would quote and respond to specific statements, rather than quoting an entire post and commenting. Makes it hard to determine just which claims you're challenging).
GE!

There's a whole host of things-in-themselves from which we can try to describe, like the myriad of things from cognition itself/conscious phenomena, right?
Yes, of course. But above you spoke of saying something "metaphysical" about "those things." Which specific things did you have in mind there?
There are no "contradictions" in "reality." There are only contradictions in some propositions about reality.
Are you suggesting that you understand the nature reality, you know, like the concept of a God would know?[/b]
No. I said nothing there about God. I said that contradictions are properties of some propositions, not about any component or aspect of "reality" other than propositions. You're trying to apply that term to phenomena where it has no application, rather like Chomsky's "Green ideas sleep furiously." Ideas don't have colors, don't sleep. The universe or "reality" doesn't have contradictions; those are the wrong category of subjects for that property. Only what we might SAY about it can have contradictions.
No. You can't glide from an argument about propositions to a conclusion about "beings." You have a 4-term fallacy going there (unless you perhaps count propositions as a species of "beings").

Yes you can. You can because a priori logic allows us to, hence, the ontological/cosmological arguments.
What is this "a priori logic" to which you refer? Are you referring to Kant's categories? None of those lead to a "logically necessary being." And you can't derive such a "being" from the existence of logically necessary propositions. Any "a priori logic" which leads you to that conclusion is fallacious; it commits the 4-term fallacy.

The ontological argument is also fallacious, to the extent it reaches conclusions about "beings." What we can do is construct an argument such as the following:

1. Something exists.

2. Whatever exists has a cause, e.g., if X exists, then it had some cause Y. Hence Y exists, which requires some cause Z. Etc.

3. Hence there necessarily exists an infinite chain of causes.

Premise #2 is an assumption. If it is false then the conclusion would not follow. But it does follow if #2 is true. We have no way of knowing whether #2 is true, but explanation depends upon it being true. So we assume it is.
Just like mathematics (a priori/objective truth) allows us to discern some levels of reality, a priori logic does this too. Again, not a complete picture, but a picture painted in temporal-ness and finitude from which we can leap to concepts of impossibility, possibility, and necessity nonetheless.
Well, no. Mathematics does not "allow us to to discern some levels of reality," other than mathematical reality. The only means we have of "discerning (other) levels (features, aspects, components, etc.) of reality" is by observing (experiencing) them.

But "reality" is ambiguous. When we use that word we (generally) have one of two meanings in mind, 1) subjective reality, i.e., what we directly experience, and "external reality," a reality independent from us which we postulate to explain subjective experience. The latter "reality" is a conceptual model of a possible reality, which "stands in" for Kant's noumenal reality, about which we can know nothing.

To be sure, there are numerous other imagined "realities" mystics, Platonic philosophers, religionists, even poets and fiction writers, have conjured from the depths of the their own minds, but which have no empirical basis and no explanatory power. Some of those have entertainment value, but no other intellectual utility.
Remember almost all of formal logic relate to either/or; not both/and. The nature of realty or existence is more often than not both/and. That's what metaphysician's do
"The nature of realty or existence is more often than not both/and."
That is a proposition about reality. It is too vague to assign it any truth value --- a problem with much of what metaphysicians say about "reality."
GE, are suggesting consciousness and subconsciousness and the explanations and descriptions thereof are too vague?
Huh? My comment above related to your claim that ""The nature of realty or existence is more often than not both/and." I said that was too vague. Where does consciousness/subconsciousness enter the picture? There is nothing vague about those concepts.
GE!

No sir. Nothin' do with Kant's categories. Simple a priori logic.

As demonstrated, consciousness and subconsciousness work together in an illogical fashion. You know, beyond pure reason kinds of stuff.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 451
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by Astro Cat »

GE Morton wrote: July 26th, 2022, 7:57 pm
Huh? My comment above related to your claim that ""The nature of realty or existence is more often than not both/and." I said that was too vague. Where does consciousness/subconsciousness enter the picture? There is nothing vague about those concepts.
Quoted just the bottom bit because it was easiest to do on my phone, but this was the best post in this thread so far.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: July 26th, 2022, 6:32 am
All of the things you describe are undesirable, but I really can't see a moral (or any other) dimension to them.
GE Morton wrote: July 26th, 2022, 11:01 am "Evil (noun):
1a: the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing
b: a cosmic evil force
2: something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil

Evils have a moral component when inflicted by a moral agent. But they are still evils if inflicted by nature. Since God is regarded as a moral agent, then they have a moral component when they are inflicted by him. Hence the "problem of evil."
I'm aware of the dictionary definitions, but I don't think they're especially helpful to us in this topic.

Consider the dictionary definition you quoted. The first offers "the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing", but doesn't mention the target(s). It seems to imply, without actually saying so, that these words are intended to apply to human beings, without regard for anything else in the universe, living or not. The other two sub-definitions offer the same problem.

The consequences of this are obvious: surely what is evil for humans can often be 'good' for other things or creatures? And if so, what does this say about the concept of 'evil'? It says that 'evil' is just humans bleating and whining because some aspect of the Universe has not been optimised for humans! The arrogance and conceit contained in this sentiment is astonishing and (IMO) childish in the extreme.

Then there's the 'evil' person and their 'evil' acts. No court ever tried anyone for being 'evil'. The charges are always much more specific, and more directly connected to RL. The description of such a person as "evil" says nothing except that the person saying it disapproves of the person accused, or of their actions (or both). Again, 'evil' has just become an expression of undesirability or disapproval, with no specific meaning.

"Evil" has moral and religious connotations, and I find those components to be vague and lacking in any useful meaning. I do not say that there is no such thing as 'evil', 'evil' people or 'evil' acts; I say only that when we call these things "evil" we mean nothing more than to express our disapproval. This perspective is much, much, less than the Satanic monstrosity that is 'evil' in the minds of some...
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Astro Cat wrote: July 27th, 2022, 8:07 am
GE Morton wrote: July 26th, 2022, 7:57 pm
Huh? My comment above related to your claim that ""The nature of realty or existence is more often than not both/and." I said that was too vague. Where does consciousness/subconsciousness enter the picture? There is nothing vague about those concepts.
Quoted just the bottom bit because it was easiest to do on my phone, but this was the best post in this thread so far.
AC!

Are you thinking that consciousness and subconscious working together transcend things like LEM too?
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by GE Morton »

3017Metaphysician wrote: July 27th, 2022, 8:01 am
No sir. Nothin' do with Kant's categories. Simple a priori logic.
Well, I asked you before, "What is this "a priori logic" to which you refer?" No answer so far. This "logic" seems to be a name you've misleadingly attached to some intuitions or emotionally-grounded beliefs you hold, and has little to do with logic as developed by Aristotle, Chrysippus, Boole, Frege, Russell, Godel, Tarski, et al.
As demonstrated, consciousness and subconsciousness work together in an illogical fashion. You know, beyond pure reason kinds of stuff.
What demonstration was that? Consciousness and the subconscious work together, but there is is nothing "illogical" or even mysterious about that.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

GE Morton wrote: July 27th, 2022, 11:29 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 27th, 2022, 8:01 am
No sir. Nothin' do with Kant's categories. Simple a priori logic.
Well, I asked you before, "What is this "a priori logic" to which you refer?" No answer so far. This "logic" seems to be a name you've misleadingly attached to some intuitions or emotionally-grounded beliefs you hold, and has little to do with logic as developed by Aristotle, Chrysippus, Boole, Frege, Russell, Godel, Tarski, et al.
As demonstrated, consciousness and subconsciousness work together in an illogical fashion. You know, beyond pure reason kinds of stuff.
What demonstration was that? Consciousness and the subconscious work together, but there is is nothing "illogical" or even mysterious about that.
GE!

Yes, examples include the aforementioned ontological and cosmological arguments that we've been discussing.

Yes, it's illogical, as we've discussed (driving while daydreaming, Will v. intellect, Time, and other phenomena) because it transcends logical thinking or thought processes relative to either/or, LEM, Bivalence, a priori logic and so forth. Generally, one could say that it's in the spirit of Kant's CPR if that helps. Or even in the spirit of Existentialism too.

In summary, you're not so logical after all Dr. Spock :lol:

Maybe do a thread on the differences between reality and phenomena, that may also help. You know, phenomenology is basically data collected empirically from conscious experience. That might be a better approach since you seem to be struggling with the a priori v. a posteriori kinds of thinking/thought processes. Try it, you might like it! (I'll be happy to participate.)
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by GE Morton »

Pattern-chaser wrote: July 27th, 2022, 8:14 am
Consider the dictionary definition you quoted. The first offers "the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing", but doesn't mention the target(s). It seems to imply, without actually saying so, that these words are intended to apply to human beings, without regard for anything else in the universe, living or not. The other two sub-definitions offer the same problem.

The consequences of this are obvious: surely what is evil for humans can often be 'good' for other things or creatures? And if so, what does this say about the concept of 'evil'? It says that 'evil' is just humans bleating and whining because some aspect of the Universe has not been optimised for humans! The arrogance and conceit contained in this sentiment is astonishing and (IMO) childish in the extreme.
I have a great deal of sympathy with what you say there. The (human) concept of "evil" certainly is strongly human-centered. I don't personally consider natural events, even those destructive of humans and their property, to be "evils," in any morally relevant sense, but they can be "evil" in the morally-neutral sense of destructive or injurious to people or to the things they care about. But you need to keep in mind that the God of the Western monotheisms is itself human-centered; we are allegedly created "in His image," and are his crowning achievement, the final work of the six days of creation. Our well-being is His central concern. He dispatched his son to "save" us. So while the problem of evil may not be a problem for you or I, it is a problem for traditional Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
Then there's the 'evil' person and their 'evil' acts. No court ever tried anyone for being 'evil'. The charges are always much more specific, and more directly connected to RL. The description of such a person as "evil" says nothing except that the person saying it disapproves of the person accused, or of their actions (or both).
Oh, it says more than that --- it says that the act in question was injurious or destructive (per the dictionary). BTW, what is "RL" there?
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021