--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGY00007 Date: 12/28/97 From: WILLIAM ELLIOT Time: 09:49pm \/To: ANDREW CUMMINS (Read 0 times) Subj: Faithfullessness >>> Andrew Cummins on Faithfullessness AC> Let me educate you: Galileo was treated as a heretic by AC> the scientific establishment. The "church", like modern AC> theistic Evolutionists, had adopted the secular scientific AC> dogma of the day (Aristotelian Naturalism), and then became AC> as much an enemy of Truth as any modern Evolutionist. WE> Illogical. AC> If it really were illogical you would have explained. Your AC> one-word response reveals that you cannot find fault with AC> what I say except that it is contrary to your religious AC> beliefs. Let me educate you: It was easier to summarize than to give a dissertation about educational reform. ... Skip the truth, just get to the facts. --- * Origin: Sunken R'lyeh - Portland, OR 503-642-3548 (1:105/337) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGY00008 Date: 12/28/97 From: WILLIAM ELLIOT Time: 09:57pm \/To: RICHARD MEIC (Read 0 times) Subj: Tweakies >>> Richard Meic on Tweakies RM> There was a recent flood of stupidity from Andy less then a week ago. RM> One was a lame insult in a message to me (about teleportation). Sure enuf, he was gracious enuf to remember me today. If I learn him enuf he just may get it, how to tweak instead of twit. Anyway, I'm getting an acquired appetite for an occasional bowl of tweakies. How about you? BTW, the three stooges made a career out of stupidity. -) ... Freedumb: the right to be dumb without paying the costs. --- * Origin: Sunken R'lyeh - Portland, OR 503-642-3548 (1:105/337) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGY00009 Date: 12/28/97 From: WILLIAM ELLIOT Time: 10:18pm \/To: FATAL ERROR (Read 0 times) Subj: Instant Eternal Happiness >>> Fatal Error on Instant Eternal Happiness FE> sometimes my messages don't get saved >:P ... Over regulation? Indeed, it's revenge for unethical profits. --- * Origin: Sunken R'lyeh - Portland, OR 503-642-3548 (1:105/337) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGY00010 Date: 12/28/97 From: WILLIAM ELLIOT Time: 10:49pm \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: Instant Riddle >>> Frank Masingill on Instant Riddle FM> Perhaps if the subject were math and the question was ? = 400 + FM> 400, then the answer of 400 COULD be said to be half right but even FM> THAT is dubious. The notion of half is slippery. Half of 2000 AD is 1000 AD while half of 100 AD is 50 AD and half of 10 AD is 5 AD 1/2 more is 1/3 less. 100 + 100/2 = 150, 150 - 150/3 = 100 ... Don't start vast projects with half vast ideas. -) --- * Origin: Sunken R'lyeh - Portland, OR 503-642-3548 (1:105/337) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGY00011 Date: 12/29/97 From: WILLIAM ELLIOT Time: 12:13am \/To: ANDREW CUMMINS (Read 0 times) Subj: Evolution >>> Andrew Cummins on Evolution Naw, consensus is that he won't. ... Cutting edge of blunt statement isn't pointless, pricks listeners. --- * Origin: Sunken R'lyeh - Portland, OR 503-642-3548 (1:105/337) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGY00012 Date: 12/29/97 From: WILLIAM ELLIOT Time: 01:00am \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: Brainy >>> Frank Masingill on Brainy FM> When I was doing research in the National Archives FM> in a field of Foreign Relations not much material of any worth was open FM> for public scrutiny beyond about 1929 and as far as I know some FM> material on the subject in the British archives is still closed even on FM> the 19th century. Gosh that's known as pornographic history, you know, stuff too embarrassing for the general public to read. -) FM> One of the marks of modernity is the separation of the scholar from FM> his tools. The media separates most people from their minds. Those that still cling to this mental aberration are slandered or otherwise discredited. FM> Then, there are the idiots who throw labels around carelessly with FM> not a shred of understanding as to what they mean because they have a FM> "special" sound or tone or they evoke certain "feelings." Dang if you didn't just up me to whip off some 'thoughtful' taglines. FM> Communication with such people is, to put it bluntly, next to FM> impossible. Sure enuf, 'cause you'se stuck on being logical. I suggest you peak in on the Tweaky thread and get you some illogical education. ... Philosophy is a joke. If it isn't, you're taking life too seriously. --- * Origin: Sunken R'lyeh - Portland, OR 503-642-3548 (1:105/337) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGZ00000 Date: 12/28/97 From: JOHN BOONE Time: 01:52pm \/To: CLARENCE HOGAN (Read 0 times) Subj: Black and White On 12-27-97 Clarence Hogan wrote to John Boone... Hello Clarence and thanks for writing, CH> JB> However, as I pointed out to Clarence, when given, a CH> JB> either or statement of either good or evil, and not good CH> JB> leaves us with evil. CH> Now just a cotton pickin bowl weevil hair minute! CH> "NOT GOOD" absolutely does NOT leave anyone with EVIL! Clarence as I tried pointing out to you several times, before, there is a GIVEN, ASSUMPTION, which is *********************************************** *********************************************** *********************************************** *********************************************** *******-ONLY VALID-******** *********************************************** *********************************************** *********************************************** *********************************************** when dealing with a -TRUE- either-or situation. In this case, the assumption was that all humans are either good or evil. BTW, I don't believe this proposition to be true. The logic went like this: proposition #1: all humans are either good or bad proposition #2: a human is not good conclusion : a human is bad or evil Such a conclusion is valid -only- when proposition #1 and number #2 are valid. As I pointed out, we were -assuming- number one to true which in fact it isn't. CH> Just because you are a "not good" or "bad" typist, does NOT CH> mean that your are an "EVIL" typist, OR ARE YOU? As I pointed out before, when there are more than two classes such -LOGIC- falls (IOW, I agree such a dichotomy can't be made). Before, you used examples of animals. Let me see if I can help you understand the difference. In that example, you used and example of humans versus non-humans: proposition #1: all living creature are either humans or not propostionn #2: this living creature is not a human conclusion : therefore this living creature is a bird As I pointed before, you were correct in pointing out that such logic is faulty, I agree with you, but pointed out the reason such a conclusion was faulty is it made a distinction between non-humans. However, let us look at the exact same two propositions but with a different conclusion: proposition #1: all living creatures are either human or not propostionn #2: the living creature is not a human conclusion : the living creature is not a human Please notice, the conclusion is valid, provided both propistion #1 and #2 are valid; in addition, please notice, the conclusion doesn't make a distinction amoung non-humans. Now getting back to your question, Just because you are a "not good" or "bad" typist, does NOT mean that your are an "EVIL" typist, OR ARE YOU? You confuse the meaning of "bad typist" (pretaining to one's ability to type) with the meaning of "evil typist" (not pretaining to one's ability to type but rather one's nature). However, your example does serve to show -why- such dichotomy logic falls or fails when dealing with -MORE- than two classes. I am afraid, this exhausts my ability within this arena to explain to you -what- I had been attempting to express that IMO it is not necessary within the Christian faith for us know evil in order for us to do good, we only need to know Christ. It was my understanding that it was your contention that we must also know evil in order to know good. Let me try to explain it using set theory. Are there any Christ like acts that are not good? IMO, no, meaning all Christ like acts get mapped or associated with good. Please notice, this implies it is -sufficient- (please notice this is different than saying it is -necessary-) only for us to know Christ. However, it says nothing about -other- acts (non-Christ like) which may be -good- as well. Take care, Happy New Year! John ___ * OFFLINE 1.54 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Strawberry Fields (1:116/5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGZ00001 Date: 12/28/97 From: JOHN BOONE Time: 03:00pm \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: M R L insights On 12-27-97 Frank Masingill wrote to John Boone... Hello Frank and thanks for writing, [snip] FM> JB> From "Free to Choose" page 97,98: FM> JB> The first modern state to introduce on a fairly large scale the FM> JB> kind of FM> JB> welfare measures.........."Iron Chancellor" Otto Von Bismark. FM> JB> His FM> JB> [Bismarks] motives were a complex mixture of parternalistic FM> JB> concern for FM> JB> the lower classes and shrewd politics. It may seem paradoxial [snip] FM> JB> So, Milton Friedman thinks that BISMARK was a idelogical FM> JB> socialist with FM> JB> regard to CENTRALIZED rule. He says and I quote again: FM> JB> But there is no paradox----even putting to one side Bismark's FM> JB> political FM> JB> motives. Believers in aristocracy and socialism share a faith in FM> JB> CENTRALIZED rule, in rule by command rather than by voluntary FM> JB> cooperation. [snip] FM> I surely will not argue the point and I bow to the superior skill FM> of Milton FM> Friedman as an historian (grin). I am also sorry that I misled all of FM> those students over the years in my acceptance of the more conventional FM> assessment of Bismarck. This is where I find your position abour "REALITY" somewhat inconsistent as I pointed out before. How could you "accept" knowing the "REALITY" of Bismark based upon the -assumption- about the impossibility for anyone, including you, to know that you know part of "REALITY?" IOW, in order for you to know that you know the "REALITY" of Bismark, you must also know that you know PART of "REALITY" pretaining to Bismark which is something that you said you couldn't do. FM> With enough rationalization I believe one could make Charlemagne FM> into a modern ideologue. He surely did care about his people! Let us define ideologue (from Encarta's 95 dictionary): definition of ideologue: an advocate of a particular ideology definition of ideology: 1 )a systemic set of doctrines or beliefs or 2) the body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class or culture defintion of doctrine or belief: something believed or accepted as true. definition of advocate: someone who speaks, pleads, or argues in favour of Putting together, an ideologue is a person who speaks or argues in favour of something believed or accepted as true. Are you going to tell me Charlemagne didn't advocate "something he believed to be true?" Finally, and I am sorry to tell you according to this defintion, you are an ideologue. The "something" you believe, accept, to be true is "man can't know "REALITY"" and you certainty advocate, argue, it here thus fullfilling the requirements of a ideologue. Heck according to this defintion, we are probably -all- ideologues. Take care, John ___ * OFFLINE 1.54 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Strawberry Fields (1:116/5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGZ00002 Date: 12/28/97 From: JOHN BOONE Time: 03:54pm \/To: WILLIAM ELLIOT (Read 0 times) Subj: Black and White On 12-27-97 William Elliot wrote to John Boone... Hello William and thanks for writing, WE> JB> However, as I pointed out to Clarence, when given, a WE> JB> either or statement of either good or evil, and not good WE> JB> leaves us with evil. WE> This presumes that good and evil are truly mutually Yep, (actually this assumes "evil" is equivalent to "not-good" which in fact may not be true) which is something I set up for Clarence, when I set up the argument. IOW, in our, Clarence's and my, discussion, I expressed (probably not to well) I was making such an assumption which in fact may not be true; however, I did it for a reason. I invite you to read my latest post to him. WE> exclusive witch is the case except when good is equivalent WE> to not-evil. Consider good to have money and bad to owe Hmm, even if good were equivalent to "not-evil"? The situation turns into "not-evil" and "evil", simply put A (evil) and not A (evil) which in Aristolian logic is mutually exclusive. However, in the world of Fuzzy logic such things can happen. WE> money. Then it is not true that 'either good or bad' for WE> having no money and having no debts is neither good nor bad. In this situation as I pointed out to Clarence either or situations are -ONLY VALID- when dealing with NOT more than TWO classes. In the example you post, we are dealing NOT with TWO classes but rather THREE. One, good to have money, two, bad to owe money and three having no money or having no debts, neither. Which in this case, a either or argument can be invalid. However, let us change the situation a bit: 1) either one has money or one doesn't have money (please notice doesn't have money includes those who owe or those in the neither category, e.g. neither owes money or has money). 2) all those who are have money are good 3) all those who don't have money are bad 4) one doesn't have money 5) therefore, one is bad WE> Likewise to view all actions as either good or evil is to WE> deny the real alternative of the ethical neutral. Yep and yet again we are dealing with three classes 1) those actions considered ethically good, 2) those actions considered ethically bad (which is not good) and 3) those actions considered ethically neutral (which is considered not good). However, in the Aristolian world, there is no way one can act in ethically good ways (A stands for ethically good ways) AND act in ethically NOT GOOD ways (not A) at the same time. However, and I think an imporatant point to stress, if there are more than two catergories (good and not good which includes evil and neutral) when one speaks of -not good-, one isn't or can't make statements to distinguish between evil or neutral. WE> Additionally, evil seems a rather strong word for I WE> consider bad things such as a black head not to be evil WE> like an infected pimple can be. So I could claim that evil I agree. [snip] WE> Seeing things only as either good or evil is rather narrow. As I expressed, before, in the Arisotelian world, things are either "good", A, or "not good", not A. However, this does nothing in speaking about making distinctions about "not goods" as in "bad" or "neutral." [snip] Take care, John ___ * OFFLINE 1.54 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Strawberry Fields (1:116/5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGZ00003 Date: 12/28/97 From: JOHN BOONE Time: 04:13pm \/To: WILLIAM ELLIOT (Read 0 times) Subj: Black and White On 12-27-97 William Elliot wrote to John Boone... Hello William, WE> JB> The part you are missing, given the premise either good or WE> JB> evil and not good leaves us with evil. WE> True. However I dispute the premise. Ok, I agree. WE> Black or white? What about gray? In the Aristolian world, there are no grays. A and not A. In the example above, it would be black, A, of not black, not A, but notice please not black contains both white and gray. WE> Positive or negative? What about zero? In this situation, we could say, positive (A) and not-positive (not A) which includes two, negative and zero. WE> Good or bad? What about ethical neutral? In this situation, good (A) and not good (not A) with "not good" containing bad and ethically neutral. WE> JB> However, as I pointed out to you before and Clarence, WE> JB> one, can't use such arguments to distinguish -between- WE> JB> non-classes when such classes are more than one. WE> Would you review the argument and include some details? I did in the previous post. Simply put as you outlined, when dealing with more than three classes either or arguments fall apart in some cases particulary when dealing trying to make a distinction with than three classes. I'll use the example you did before: you started white or not white therefore someone not white is black. This I pointed as you were trying to stress was making a distinction amoung non-whites and is not possible with the information given. However, we can make the statement of: either white or not-white not white therefore not white. Notice, not white makes no statements or distinctions amoung the various classes of not-whites. WE> JB> In the example you gave, you made a statement to WE> JB> distinguish amoung non-white which as I wrote previously WE> JB> is ILLOGICAL as it contains more than one. WE> I'm not following this for lack of salient details. Which example? You were trying to point to my apparent inconsisteny of my either or argument (good and evil) with more than -three- classes by using a black individual. Take care, Happy New Year John ___ * OFFLINE 1.54 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Strawberry Fields (1:116/5)