I was a teenage logical positivist

[TruXta]

I refuse. But the sun is shining and it's time to put a lid on it. Later you fuckin mentalist!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Good idea. This is in fact the least contentious part of what I think. There's a lot more to it that I won't discuss on here because I can't demonstrate it yet.

 

[TruXta]

#rubs hands#

 

[phildwyer]

Define 'stuff'.

I asked Santino to do that once, and was rewarded with about ten pages of furious, indignant chirruping.

Let's see if you have better luck.

 

[Santino]

Prove that.

 

[TruXta]

Prove this, you beardy swarthy something or other.

 

[Santino]

If you're asking me to define 'stuff', then you've not understood what I've said.

 

[laptop]

Prove this, you beardy swarthy something or other.

It's on the internets. It must be true.

 

[TruXta]

If you're asking me to define 'stuff', then you've not understood what I've said.

I already did that. Keep up monkey-boy.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If you're asking me to define 'stuff', then you've not understood what I've said.

Is that aimed at me? If so, could you explain?

 

[phildwyer]

If you're asking me to define 'stuff', then you've not understood what I've said.

Prove that we can be certain that "stuff exists."

 

[Santino]

I meant (∃x) rather than (∃x)(Fx). And certainly not (∃x)(Fx)→(Gx) where F is the property of existing and G is the propert of being 'stuff'.

 

[phildwyer]

Whoever said philosophers were out of touch with everyday life?

 

[Santino]

Just say if you don't understand something I've posted, phil.

 

[TruXta]

I meant (∃x) rather than (∃x)(Fx). And certainly not (∃x)(Fx)→(Gx) where F is the property of existing and G is the propert of being 'stuff'.

Surely positing (∃x) is enough to warrant existence formally? If you have to prove (∃x) you're in trouble.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I meant (∃x) rather than (∃x)(Fx). And certainly not (∃x)(Fx)→(Gx) where F is the property of existing and G is the propert of being 'stuff'.

I don't think that changes anything, tbh.

 

[Santino]

Changes what? Why do you think I posted that?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Crossed wires perhaps. I don't think that affects anything I've been saying.

 

[Santino]

Affects what?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Don't be cryptic please. I've been doing my level best on this thread not to be cryptic and to answer everyone's objections as clearly as I can. I'd appreciate it if you would do the same.

 

[Santino]

I've posted up a logical illustration of that statement 'stuff exists' because some people seem not to understand what I meant by it. And then you start going on about how that doesn't affect anything you've said, although exactly what it is that isn't affected you haven't said - and I'm the one being cryptic?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Is that aimed at me? If so, could you explain?

This was not a cryptic question. But you did not answer it.

 

[phildwyer]

I've posted up a logical illustration of that statement 'stuff exists' because some people seem not to understand what I meant by it. And then you start going on about how that doesn't affect anything you've said, although exactly what it is that isn't affected you haven't said - and I'm the one being cryptic?

Yes, you are actually. Or missing the point, rather. The point is that the statement "stuff exists" is not susceptible to proof by formal logic.

Or indeed to any other kind of proof.

 

[phildwyer]

I don't think that changes anything, tbh.

And you are right.

As Revol said right at the beginning of the thread, Santino's wibbling is like trying to study a novel by analyzing the rules of grammar.

It misses the point. In fact it is designed to miss the point.

 

[Santino]

Yes, you are actually. Or missing the point, rather. The point is that the statement "stuff exists" is not susceptible to proof by formal logic.

Or indeed to any other kind of proof.

I haven't attempted to prove it. What I posted IS NOT A LOGICAL PROOF. I haven't said that it's the sort of statement that needs proving. Hope this helps.

 

[phildwyer]

I haven't attempted to prove it.

Please do so, since you have claimed it.

 

[Santino]

No.

 

[Santino]

"The 'scandal of philosophy' is not that this proof has yet to be given, but that such proofs are expected and attempted again and again."

 

[TruXta]

Where's that from?

 

[phildwyer]

No.

Because you cannot. No-one could.