Posts by dunsscot

62

Working on a Logical Problem

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

dear good people of j-w.com,.

i am sitting in my office working on a problem and i need your help.

do you think that these sentences are true?.

larc: Hello brother Farkel,
While Duns is trying to understand the nature of water, others are trying to figure out the nature of child abuse, spousal abuse, mental illness, failed prophecy, educational restrictions, military draft issues, blood issues, and a generally fucked up system. Once Duns understands the nature of water, he might move on to these other distasteful subjects.:

Are you telling me that you cannot try to understand more than one res at a time, brother larc? For the record, I am not that concerned with the nature of water. My interest actually lies in the descriptive adequacy and precision of the proposition, "Water is H20."

But I am also interested in the quiddity of race as well as the whatness of intelligence as it pertains to minorities. These issues have a broad impact on young people undergoing social justice in modern society, as brother Firpo Carr well knows. I am also quite interested in assisting those who suffer various forms of mental illness. Yes, Duns is not monomaniacal.

Duns the Scot

62

Working on a Logical Problem

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

dear good people of j-w.com,.

i am sitting in my office working on a problem and i need your help.

do you think that these sentences are true?.

dunsscot

:Duns

WATER IS.

Any attempt to define or label it is changes nothing.
Lyall Watson wrote about water and its properties - it is beyond
subjective descriptions.:

Dear Trevor,

Remember that Kripke wrote:

"When I refer to heat, I refer not to an internal sensation that someone may have, but to an external phenomenon which we perceive through the sense of feeling; it produces a characteristic sensation which we call the sensation of heat. Heat IS the motion of molecules" (page 129).

Note that Kripke associates heat with motion of molecules. This observation is based on nomological principles.

He also thinks that water is an objective phenomenon. Surely you are not saying that the statement, "water is H20," is a subjective description. This theoretical statement of identity is something that we can verify scientifically. "Water is H20," may not exhaust the "essence" of water. But it does not seem to be a subjective description either.

Duns the Scot

62

Working on a Logical Problem

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

dear good people of j-w.com,.

i am sitting in my office working on a problem and i need your help.

do you think that these sentences are true?.

dunsscot

Hi Ladonna,

:Hi Duns,
I have an idea where you are coming from.

Kripkes' style is "essentialism" whereby he seeks to explain essence in terms of essential properties.

You have me thinking back a fair few years, but can these questions be adequately explained on logical grounds when by the same token they cannot be explained on metaphysical grounds either?:

Admittedly, Kripke's "essentialism" has been hotly contested by other philosophers of language. Of course, before we are too critical, we must read his statements of fact about water and heat in the light of his entire rigid designation project. Simply put, Kripke wants to say that the proposition, "this table is not made of ice," if true, is true in all counterfactual situations. Thus he posits a type of metaphysical necessity vis-à-vis such propositions as the foregoing statement about "this table" as well as propositions like "water is H20."

Ultimately, Kripke is trying to overthrow Russell's description theory that contends the moniker, Aristotle, in the proposition, "Aristotle was the last great philosopher of antiquity" is not a rigid designator: It is a description, claims Russell. That is, in a counterfactual situation, Russell thinks that there could have been someone else who was "the last great philosopher of antiquity," who was not Aristotle (according to Russell). Kripke seems to disagree. The same principle extended to the name, Aristotle, applies to water and heat. If we encounter a substance that is 1 part oxygen and 2 parts hydrogen, then it has to be water, says Kripke. Water is a rigid designation that is true in all possible worlds.

Granted, we cannot apodictically prove Kripke's position. But I think it opens up theoretical possibilities concerning the likelihood of God's necessary existence. Paul Davies, the astrophysicist, once wrote that the proposition, "God does not exist," while it does not violate any logical schema--could be false in all possible worlds. In other words, the word "God" might be a rigid designator, and the proposition, "God exists," could be true in all counterfactual situations. Yet this statement of fact might be unprovable on the basis of Godel's incompleteness theorem.

Thanks for your input,
Dan

Duns the Scot

62

Working on a Logical Problem

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

dear good people of j-w.com,.

i am sitting in my office working on a problem and i need your help.

do you think that these sentences are true?.

dunsscot

It is lunchtime, so I have got to jet for a few hours. :-)

But here is my reply to ianao.

For a classic philosophical delineation of makarios, see Aristotle's _Nicomachean Ethics_.

Duns: Again, Duns must recommend one of his favorite books, _God, Guilt, and Death_. Westphal has a chapter on useless self-transcendence in this monograph. Read it and I think it will change your life, while helping you to see what pleasure AND happiness service to God can bring.:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ianao: Hmmm... You want me to read a book dealing with issues that aren't a reality for me. Boy, you sure do have a problem with putting the shoe on the other foot! Also, self-transcendence isn't even an issue for folks who don't consider transcendence an issue in the first place. Looks like you are ASSuming a few things about yours truly.:

I thought you were an open-minded person, ian. I know that Duns sure reads information he takes issue with quite frequently. Sartre is a prime example. So I well know what it is like to put the shoe on the other foot. My mistake might have been in "assuming" you were open to read material that clashes with your Weltanschauung.

Furthermore, the concept of human transcendence is both a secular and sacred concept. Why would you object to the notion of human self-transcendence? We transcend ourselves all the time.

:Dunny-po, why don't you read up a little bit on the human psyche and the effects that 'religion' in the western sense has on it. You may find out how to 'grow-up and strike out on your own.':

I am well aware of religion's influence on the human psyche. Such facts do not mean God has not manifested Himself to men throughout history.

Duns the Scot

62

Working on a Logical Problem

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

dear good people of j-w.com,.

i am sitting in my office working on a problem and i need your help.

do you think that these sentences are true?.

dunsscot

:Back to the original question....
The elements of water are 1 part oxygen, 2 parts hydrogen.......this applies whether the "water" is in ice, steam or snow form.

Therefore, both questions are right.

It is rather like asking if a glass is half full or half empty.:

Thanks for your input, Ladonna. You really make a valid observation. But let me expand on my question, so that you can see the problem I am having with Kripke's wording.

If, by the proposition, "water is H20," Kripke means that water is 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen in all counterfactual situations, (thus if we encountered a substance that has the feel and appearance and even taste of water, but is not 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, then the substance we discovered would not be water), I would then agree with Kripke's contention. But I'm not so sure the identity statement, "water is H20," satisfactorily describes what water really is.

Water is not the only example that Kripke gives in this regard. He also gives this proposition: "Heat is the motion of molecules."

Here are his exact words. Please let me know what you think about this problem:

"When I refer to heat, I refer not to an internal sensation that someone may have, but to an external phenomenon which we perceive through then sense of feeling; it produces a characteristic sensation which we call the sensation of heat. Heat IS the motion of molecules" (page 129).

Duns the Scot

62

Working on a Logical Problem

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

dear good people of j-w.com,.

i am sitting in my office working on a problem and i need your help.

do you think that these sentences are true?.

dunsscot

For the record, I was joking about posterior analytics. I see no need to ask a homosexual anything about sex. The Bible is my guide in this area.

:If Joel says it is indeed "innate" (and he does), then it would be rather stupid to go about saying "I don't think homosexuality is innate".:

Oh really? So you think that just because someone says a certain proclivity or preference is innate, that it is? I don't think so. Would you not agree it is possible that every human on this planet processes information improperly, thus leading them to make thinking and actual mistakes? Furthermore, what if I loved eating human flesh, even if I had to kill to get it? When I was apprehended by the police for my cannibilistic habit, I contend that I was born to be a cannibal. Why, from a very early age, I would look at men and their flesh just turned me on. I could not help myself. Duns just had to slaughter men and cook them for supper. How would you deal with a case of this nature? Keep in mind that the proclivity I am discussing is the eating of human flesh. Theoretically, I could practice cannibalism without killing anyone and violating their right to life.

:It certainly is not innate in me, but that doesn't mean it isn't innate. Sometimes I wonder if the people who fight the obvious on this issue are perhaps men who do struggle with attraction to males, even if it is only a small attraction.:

You obviously are aware that we can never definitively prove or disprove homosexuality's supposed innateness. Science can certainly never "prove" this contention to be true, though it might provide sufficient warrant that homosexuality is innate (See _The Physics of Immortality_ by Frank J. Tipler). But I have yet to read any scientific study that has provided unambiguous warrant for the notion you seem to be advocating.

Duns the Scot

62

Working on a Logical Problem

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

dear good people of j-w.com,.

i am sitting in my office working on a problem and i need your help.

do you think that these sentences are true?.

dunsscot

Max: Methinks you meant "penile," Doctor Subtilis.

You're quite right, Max. That is what rushing will get you. Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways. I will now repent and offer more libations.

But, as I am rethinking this issue, it seems that I could have made a Freudian slip. Is there really any formal difference between penal and penile? I guess if you're in a prison for women, there is a difference.

Thanks,
Doc

62

Working on a Logical Problem

by dunsscot in

jw
friends

dear good people of j-w.com,.

i am sitting in my office working on a problem and i need your help.

do you think that these sentences are true?.

dunsscot

Jimlad: Hey Dunns, sometimes in the morning when I shave after a shower I look down and wonder:
1) Is my dink looking away from me to be rude?
or
2) Is my dink talking to my feet and the jokes on me?

What do you think? (I mean really, how can I ever know?):

Duns: My field of expertise is not penal analytics, so I cannot help you answer the two questions that torment you to no end every morning you shave and look down at your equipment. But if you want to know anything about posterior analytics, consult joelbear since he seems to be an expert posterior analyst.

Duns the Scot

62