|
On March 27 2015 04:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 03:57 Djzapz wrote:On March 27 2015 03:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:40 Djzapz wrote:On March 27 2015 03:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:17 Mindcrime wrote:On March 27 2015 03:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:
N-1 of all choices provides a chance of providing a reward for being right.
What if there is a God that rewards atheism and punishes theism. Lots like that already. One is called Christianity. First rule => worship no other gods Then turns himself human and says to worship him. Logically, you're not worshipping a god but a human and aren't allowed to worship anyone else. So you now have a god telling you to practice atheism. No... what. Jesus is not human. Christians believe he is 100% human (there's technically a sect in turkey that doesn't) Lots of faiths worship humans and not gods, while still acknowledging that gods exist. They definitely fit the criteria of deities that punish theists and rewards atheists (people who believe in reincarnation fits this for example, where hat matters is their works and not how or which gods they worship) It's not rare for groups to worship deities that tells them not to worship deities. Well fine, but saying that means Christianity leads you "practicing atheism" is obviously a weird BS argument  Oh it's definitely total BS argument. But the question was about a go who asked his people to not worship deities. In a round about way this is true for a lot of current religions right now. That's the problem with abstraction.
Well the reason why he said that is because Pascal's wager originally posits that you should believe in God because doing so lower the chances of suffering eternal torment. The logic being, if you're an atheist and you're right, you're dead, but if you're wrong, you're in deep trouble.
He's saying that maybe there's a God who rewards atheism, thus ending the differentiation between atheism and the other options, so to speak. If you're an atheist, maybe there's a God who saves you from hell and puts all Christians in hell instead.
Yet those ideas post that God(s) give a huge shit about what you believe, which is odd. Now you've been going beyond this original idea of Pascal's wager and it's where you kind of lose me.
|
On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife
You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into. It's not my stance, it's pascal's. He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other. Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight.He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable. I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is. I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different. At which point am I criticizing atheism?
When you give false equivalence.
regarding the bolded:
Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff).
You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence.
|
To me it's the logical follow up to what one thinks of Pascal's wager if he actually did what he said and not include religion into it. He only posits two options since to him there's only 2 abstract options--Jesus yes or Jesus no.
If you peel away that bias and say "we don't know shit about what happens when we die" then it's clear you end up with infinite possibilities, only one of which is "nothing happens"
However, if you actually believe that nothing happens (and not just be unsure as what happens) then all you've got to live for is life itself. You're already in the "afterlife" in Christian terms. Why would you sacrifice that desired end point at the off chance you're wrong?
That is where Pascal's argument falls flat to me. It's asking people who don't believe in an afterlife to expunge their afterlife (in whatever arbitrary amount) in the off chance they are wrong. That's a rigged wager where one side is betting chips and the other side is betting their mortgage. Fair mathematically but unfair philosophically.
There's a lot of gray areas in between (infinite N'd remember) so there are atheist who aren't fully commited, devout theists that don't actually believe, etc... But it's the pure distiller definitions that pascal breaks down for me. It's just not an even wager.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i have no idea how this is devolving into discussing whether jesus is human lol.
|
On March 27 2015 04:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
To me it's the logical follow up to what one thinks of Pascal's wager if he actually did what he said and not include religion into it. He only posits two options since to him there's only 2 abstract options--Jesus yes or Jesus no.
If you peel away that bias and say "we don't know shit about what happens when we die" then it's clear you end up with infinite possibilities, only one of which is "nothing happens"
However, if you actually believe that nothing happens (and not just be unsure as what happens) then all you've got to live for is life itself. You're already in the "afterlife" in Christian terms. Why would you sacrifice that desired end point at the off chance you're wrong?
That is where Pascal's argument falls flat to me. It's asking people who don't believe in an afterlife to expunge their afterlife (in whatever arbitrary amount) in the off chance they are wrong. That's a rigged wager where one side is betting chips and the other side is betting their mortgage. Fair mathematically but unfair philosophically.
There's a lot of gray areas in between (infinite N'd remember) so there are atheist who aren't fully commited, devout theists that don't actually believe, etc... But it's the pure distiller definitions that pascal breaks down for me. It's just not an even wager.
Then wtf have we been arguing about x_x
Anyway atheists don't necessarily dislike the idea of an afterlife as far as I know. They don't necessarily "desire" the end point they believe in.
|
On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife
You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into. It's not my stance, it's pascal's. He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other. Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight. He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable. I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is. I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different. At which point am I criticizing atheism? When you give false equivalence. regarding the bolded: Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff). You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence.
And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are.
You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong.
|
On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife
You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into. It's not my stance, it's pascal's. He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other. Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight. He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable. I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is. I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different. At which point am I criticizing atheism? When you give false equivalence. regarding the bolded: Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff). You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence. And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are. You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong.
And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them.
|
On March 27 2015 04:26 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
To me it's the logical follow up to what one thinks of Pascal's wager if he actually did what he said and not include religion into it. He only posits two options since to him there's only 2 abstract options--Jesus yes or Jesus no.
If you peel away that bias and say "we don't know shit about what happens when we die" then it's clear you end up with infinite possibilities, only one of which is "nothing happens"
However, if you actually believe that nothing happens (and not just be unsure as what happens) then all you've got to live for is life itself. You're already in the "afterlife" in Christian terms. Why would you sacrifice that desired end point at the off chance you're wrong?
That is where Pascal's argument falls flat to me. It's asking people who don't believe in an afterlife to expunge their afterlife (in whatever arbitrary amount) in the off chance they are wrong. That's a rigged wager where one side is betting chips and the other side is betting their mortgage. Fair mathematically but unfair philosophically.
There's a lot of gray areas in between (infinite N'd remember) so there are atheist who aren't fully commited, devout theists that don't actually believe, etc... But it's the pure distiller definitions that pascal breaks down for me. It's just not an even wager. Then wtf have we been arguing about x_x
From my end I've just been reiterating my origiginal statements, just in more detail. I was mainly confused at the change in tone since I felt I was in agreement but we were still fighting.
I think where it went off te rails is that you see Pascal's wager as being an attack on atheists and I see it as a flawed argument and we were talking past eac other.
|
On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife
You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into. It's not my stance, it's pascal's. He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other. Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight. He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable. I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is. I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different. At which point am I criticizing atheism? When you give false equivalence. regarding the bolded: Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff). You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence. And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are. You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong. And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them.
If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid.
There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own.
|
On March 27 2015 04:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:26 Djzapz wrote:On March 27 2015 04:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
To me it's the logical follow up to what one thinks of Pascal's wager if he actually did what he said and not include religion into it. He only posits two options since to him there's only 2 abstract options--Jesus yes or Jesus no.
If you peel away that bias and say "we don't know shit about what happens when we die" then it's clear you end up with infinite possibilities, only one of which is "nothing happens"
However, if you actually believe that nothing happens (and not just be unsure as what happens) then all you've got to live for is life itself. You're already in the "afterlife" in Christian terms. Why would you sacrifice that desired end point at the off chance you're wrong?
That is where Pascal's argument falls flat to me. It's asking people who don't believe in an afterlife to expunge their afterlife (in whatever arbitrary amount) in the off chance they are wrong. That's a rigged wager where one side is betting chips and the other side is betting their mortgage. Fair mathematically but unfair philosophically.
There's a lot of gray areas in between (infinite N'd remember) so there are atheist who aren't fully commited, devout theists that don't actually believe, etc... But it's the pure distiller definitions that pascal breaks down for me. It's just not an even wager. Then wtf have we been arguing about x_x From my end I've just been reiterating my origiginal statements, just in more detail. I was mainly confused at the change in tone since I felt I was in agreement but we were still fighting. I think where it went off te rails is that you see Pascal's wager as being an attack on atheists and I see it as a flawed argument and we were talking past eac other.
It seems like it. Nonetheless in my defense Pascal's wager was originally an argument which attempted to show that atheism is irrational due to the danger of divine retribution, and it is generally used that way. I don't think it's an "attack on atheists" directly though, but rather, a justification of the Christian faith.
Certainly, we won't disagree on the point that it's a flawed argument.
|
On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife
You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into. It's not my stance, it's pascal's. He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other. Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight. He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable. I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is. I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different. At which point am I criticizing atheism? When you give false equivalence. regarding the bolded: Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff). You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence. And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are. You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong. And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them. If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid. There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own.
Can you for once stop dodging my argument? The argument is that the positive statement is human made, and the negative is the statement in a state of the universe without humans. You again and again and again claim that human phantasies have value, and i say there is no reason to assume that and start from there.
And you never even try to give a reason why you give value to human ideas at all.
|
On March 27 2015 04:45 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife
You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into. It's not my stance, it's pascal's. He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other. Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight. He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable. I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is. I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different. At which point am I criticizing atheism? When you give false equivalence. regarding the bolded: Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff). You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence. And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are. You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong. And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them. If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid. There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own. Can you for once stop dodging my argument? The argument is that the positive statement is human made, and the negative is the statement in a state of the universe without humans. You again and again and again claim that human phantasies have value, and i say there is no reason to assume that and start from there. And you never even try to give a reason why you give value to human ideas at all.
All postulations are human ideas. To not value human ideas is to abandon all postulates and never discuss anything.
Your binary axioms of a universe with +\- human concepts is just one of the infinite human unprovable and I observable postulates and have equal weight as any other postulated idea.
|
On March 27 2015 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:45 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife
You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into. It's not my stance, it's pascal's. He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other. Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight. He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable. I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is. I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different. At which point am I criticizing atheism? When you give false equivalence. regarding the bolded: Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff). You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence. And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are. You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong. And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them. If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid. There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own. Can you for once stop dodging my argument? The argument is that the positive statement is human made, and the negative is the statement in a state of the universe without humans. You again and again and again claim that human phantasies have value, and i say there is no reason to assume that and start from there. And you never even try to give a reason why you give value to human ideas at all. All postulations are human ideas. To not value human ideas is to abandon all postulates and never discuss anything. Your binary axioms of a universe with +\- human concepts is just one of the infinite human unprovable and I observable postulates and have equal weight as any other postulated idea.
Your relativist approach of everything is equal is the true obstacle to ever discuss anything. Your assumption is every idea is equally valid, you then conclude every idea is equally valid, and thought you did some convincing philosophy right there.
Its ridiculous at this point.
|
On March 27 2015 04:54 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:45 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife
You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into. It's not my stance, it's pascal's. He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other. Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight. He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable. I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is. I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different. At which point am I criticizing atheism? When you give false equivalence. regarding the bolded: Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff). You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence. And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are. You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong. And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them. If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid. There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own. Can you for once stop dodging my argument? The argument is that the positive statement is human made, and the negative is the statement in a state of the universe without humans. You again and again and again claim that human phantasies have value, and i say there is no reason to assume that and start from there. And you never even try to give a reason why you give value to human ideas at all. All postulations are human ideas. To not value human ideas is to abandon all postulates and never discuss anything. Your binary axioms of a universe with +\- human concepts is just one of the infinite human unprovable and I observable postulates and have equal weight as any other postulated idea. Your relativist approach of everything is equal is the true obstacle to ever discuss anything. Your assumption is every idea is equally valid, you then conclude every idea is equally valid, and thought you did some convincing philosophy right there. Its ridiculous at this point.
We're not dealing with observable objects with right or wrong answers. We are dealing with unobservable concepts. To pretend one Concept has more weight than another when neither can be proved is ludicrous.
We can discuss which concept has better applications for real life practices or philosophies, we can discuss which concepts fits our own preconceived notions of right/truth/etc... But to think some are less valid than others because one thinks they sound silly is just ludicrous. Open your mind to ideas outside of your own.
|
On March 27 2015 04:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:54 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:45 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife
You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into. It's not my stance, it's pascal's. He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other. Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight. He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable. I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is. I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different. At which point am I criticizing atheism? When you give false equivalence. regarding the bolded: Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff). You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence. And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are. You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong. And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them. If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid. There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own. Can you for once stop dodging my argument? The argument is that the positive statement is human made, and the negative is the statement in a state of the universe without humans. You again and again and again claim that human phantasies have value, and i say there is no reason to assume that and start from there. And you never even try to give a reason why you give value to human ideas at all. All postulations are human ideas. To not value human ideas is to abandon all postulates and never discuss anything. Your binary axioms of a universe with +\- human concepts is just one of the infinite human unprovable and I observable postulates and have equal weight as any other postulated idea. Your relativist approach of everything is equal is the true obstacle to ever discuss anything. Your assumption is every idea is equally valid, you then conclude every idea is equally valid, and thought you did some convincing philosophy right there. Its ridiculous at this point. We're not dealing with observable objects with right or wrong answers. We are dealing with unobservable concepts. To pretend one Concept has more weight than another when neither can be proved is ludicrous. We can discuss which concept has better applications for real life practices or philosophies, we can discuss which concepts fits our own preconceived notions of right/truth/etc... But to think some are less valid than others because one thinks they sound silly is just ludicrous. Open your mind to ideas outside of your own.
We can also ask: "where does the concept come from?"
|
On March 27 2015 05:01 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 04:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:54 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:45 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
It's not my stance, it's pascal's.
He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other.Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight.
He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable.
I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is.
I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different.
At which point am I criticizing atheism? When you give false equivalence. regarding the bolded: Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff). You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence. And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are. You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong. And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them. If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid. There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own. Can you for once stop dodging my argument? The argument is that the positive statement is human made, and the negative is the statement in a state of the universe without humans. You again and again and again claim that human phantasies have value, and i say there is no reason to assume that and start from there. And you never even try to give a reason why you give value to human ideas at all. All postulations are human ideas. To not value human ideas is to abandon all postulates and never discuss anything. Your binary axioms of a universe with +\- human concepts is just one of the infinite human unprovable and I observable postulates and have equal weight as any other postulated idea. Your relativist approach of everything is equal is the true obstacle to ever discuss anything. Your assumption is every idea is equally valid, you then conclude every idea is equally valid, and thought you did some convincing philosophy right there. Its ridiculous at this point. We're not dealing with observable objects with right or wrong answers. We are dealing with unobservable concepts. To pretend one Concept has more weight than another when neither can be proved is ludicrous. We can discuss which concept has better applications for real life practices or philosophies, we can discuss which concepts fits our own preconceived notions of right/truth/etc... But to think some are less valid than others because one thinks they sound silly is just ludicrous. Open your mind to ideas outside of your own. We can also ask: "where does the concept come from?"
That's a non-question.
All abstract ideas come from human postulation otherwise we could just point "there, to the left of that rock is where I observed it"
|
On March 27 2015 05:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 05:01 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:54 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:45 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:
[quote]
When you give false equivalence.
regarding the bolded:
Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff).
You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence. And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are. You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong. And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them. If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid. There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own. Can you for once stop dodging my argument? The argument is that the positive statement is human made, and the negative is the statement in a state of the universe without humans. You again and again and again claim that human phantasies have value, and i say there is no reason to assume that and start from there. And you never even try to give a reason why you give value to human ideas at all. All postulations are human ideas. To not value human ideas is to abandon all postulates and never discuss anything. Your binary axioms of a universe with +\- human concepts is just one of the infinite human unprovable and I observable postulates and have equal weight as any other postulated idea. Your relativist approach of everything is equal is the true obstacle to ever discuss anything. Your assumption is every idea is equally valid, you then conclude every idea is equally valid, and thought you did some convincing philosophy right there. Its ridiculous at this point. We're not dealing with observable objects with right or wrong answers. We are dealing with unobservable concepts. To pretend one Concept has more weight than another when neither can be proved is ludicrous. We can discuss which concept has better applications for real life practices or philosophies, we can discuss which concepts fits our own preconceived notions of right/truth/etc... But to think some are less valid than others because one thinks they sound silly is just ludicrous. Open your mind to ideas outside of your own. We can also ask: "where does the concept come from?" That's a non-question. All abstract ideas come from human postulation otherwise we could just point "there, to the left of that rock is where I observed it"
all abstract ideas do, but why do you continue to claim the absence of the idea is an idea in the same type?
|
On March 27 2015 05:12 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 05:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 05:01 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:54 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:45 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are.
You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong. And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them. If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid. There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own. Can you for once stop dodging my argument? The argument is that the positive statement is human made, and the negative is the statement in a state of the universe without humans. You again and again and again claim that human phantasies have value, and i say there is no reason to assume that and start from there. And you never even try to give a reason why you give value to human ideas at all. All postulations are human ideas. To not value human ideas is to abandon all postulates and never discuss anything. Your binary axioms of a universe with +\- human concepts is just one of the infinite human unprovable and I observable postulates and have equal weight as any other postulated idea. Your relativist approach of everything is equal is the true obstacle to ever discuss anything. Your assumption is every idea is equally valid, you then conclude every idea is equally valid, and thought you did some convincing philosophy right there. Its ridiculous at this point. We're not dealing with observable objects with right or wrong answers. We are dealing with unobservable concepts. To pretend one Concept has more weight than another when neither can be proved is ludicrous. We can discuss which concept has better applications for real life practices or philosophies, we can discuss which concepts fits our own preconceived notions of right/truth/etc... But to think some are less valid than others because one thinks they sound silly is just ludicrous. Open your mind to ideas outside of your own. We can also ask: "where does the concept come from?" That's a non-question. All abstract ideas come from human postulation otherwise we could just point "there, to the left of that rock is where I observed it" Because both are unprovable constructs. If we never thought of mathematics, would that mean math isn't real? I we never though of God, would that mean god isn't real? Both are stupid questions tha relies on us not positing something first. All discussions starts from positing an outcome or presence of something (real or abstract) and the discussion stems from there. No talking about something does not make it less real or more real than what is talked about. all abstract ideas do, but why do you continue to claim the absence of the idea is an idea in the same type?
|
I heard about the theory that Slums exist in a City when its population reaches a high enough number where people dont know each other by name anymore. (not a literal quote, quoted by memory)
Plato came up with it according to the Video where I heard it first, but was it really plato?
|
On March 27 2015 05:43 Daumen wrote:
I heard about the theory that Slums exist in a City when its population reaches a high enough number where people dont know each other by name anymore. (not a literal quote, quoted by memory)
Plato came up with it according to the Video where I heard it first, but was it really plato?
I guess it depends on which is more important to you:
The validity of the observation (who actually postulated it)
Or the urgency of the solution (would it matter if it was Plato or not?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
