Friday, November 25, 2016
“There is no being whose non-existence implies a contradiction.”
Suppose that David Hume, whose name we shall abbreviate ‘h’, doesn’t exist. It follows that David Hume both exists and doesn’t—which is a contradiction.
∴ ¬(∃x)x = h ⊃ ((∃x)x = h • ¬(∃x)x = h)
1. ¬(∃x)x = h (assumption)
2. h = h (truism)
3. (∃x)x = h 2, EG
4. (∃x)x = h • ¬(∃x)x = h 1, 3, •I
5. ¬(∃x)x = h ⊃ ((∃x)x = h • ¬(∃x)x = h) 1-4, CP
Monday, November 07, 2016
explosion sans disjunctive syllogism. partie trois.
Consider the following inference rule:
False Antecedent (FA):
∴ ¬φ ⊃ ψ
FA is underwritten by the truth conditions for the material conditional: a statement of the form φ ⊃ ψ is not true iff φ is true and ψ is not true, and true otherwise. Thus, given φ, the conditional ¬φ ⊃ ψ is true because ¬φ is not true.
Now suppose that some contradiction holds:
1. A • ¬A ∴ B
2. A 1, •E
3. ¬A 1, •E
4. ¬A ⊃ B 2, FA
5. B 3, 4, MP
Thus, if one wishes to say that there is at least one true contradiction and deny that anything follows from this fact, one must give up either •E, MP, or FA. Suppose FA is the culprit. Then one must affirm that there it is not true that a statement of the form φ ⊃ ψ is not true iff φ is true and ψ is not true.
Sunday, August 21, 2016
a reflection on The Neon Bible.
WARNING: PLOT SPOILAGE
At the culmination of John Kennedy Toole’s The Neon Bible, David shoots the preacher. What’s disturbing is that I was glad that David shot the preacher. This is disturbing, I say, because I was glad that David shot the preacher before I had considered whether David was justified in shooting the preacher. By my lights, no one should be glad that someone shoots another person until he or she considers whether it was justified. And even if it is justified, it’s not clear to me that one should ever be glad about it.
How is that I was glad that David shot the preacher? It was because I felt for David—given what he was going through and how awful a man the preacher was, I felt glad that he shot him.
I think this shows two things. First, it shows that empathy is dangerous. It is dangerous because it allows one to be glad or be sad for someone prior and therefore independently of the justice of his or her actions. Second, It shows that rhetoric is dangerous. For, had Poole not been good at his story telling, I wouldn’t have been empathetic towards David in the first place.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Včera večer, Lilly snila se že byla ve Středomoří oceánu a jela lodí z jednoho ostrova na další ostrov. Ve jednoho ostrova setkala se Rufy a byla velmi šťastny. Pak byla smutna, protože Lilly vynechala jí maminku a jí vůdčího smečka.
Friday, June 10, 2016
there's a reason why there's no reason why.
It’s not the case that “everything happens for a reason”. But there’s a reason why this is so.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
on free will and character.
I want a better character so that I may no longer have the power to do evil.
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.