Working on a Logical Problem

by dunsscot 62 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  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
• 

  SixofNine

  I see no need to ask a homosexual anything about sex. The Bible is my guide in this area.

  
  Well that's rather stupid isn't it Duns? The bible wasn't written by anyone with a homosexual perspective that we know of, was it? Even if some of the writers were homosexual, they did not have the benifit of the ages that we have now, did they? In fact, we don't live their "lifestyle" in almost any area of life and make it our own. Not now, not in the 21 century, not even Jehovah's (christian) Witnesses.

  It is even more stupid when you think of the fact (and it is an absolute fact), that we don't know who did write much of the bible.

  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?

  Some mistakes about some things, perhaps. Some people much more than others, yourself for example. It would be rather stupid for me to decide homosexuality was not innate, if Joelbear told me it was innate, just because it is opposite every feeling I have ever had. Is Joelbear lying? Are all these millions of other men and women lying?

  What benifit is it to believe that homosexuality is not innate, in spite of overwhelming evidence that it is? Some poeple don't believe that man has walked on the moon, but there are a lot fewer astronauts out there to get their feeling hurt than there are gay people. How is believing that homosexuality is negative, "salubrious"? Who on this planet does it benifit to believe so? I want to meet that person.

  Your cannibil argument is tripe. If you where a man of character, your cheeks would be reddening not in anger at my having told you so, but in embarrassment at having written it. I suspect you are either angry or nuetral.

  though it might provide sufficient warrant that homosexuality is innate

  
  Sufficient and salubrious warrant you might say. Sufficient for those of us who care about our fellow man that is.
• 

  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?

  Ana

  "Good music is very close to primitive language."
• 

  WhyNow2000

  Dear good people of J-W.com,

  I am sitting in the toilet sweating and working on a problem and I need your help. Do you think that these sentences are true?

  1) H20 NaCl K NH2-CO-NH2 is Sweat

  2) Sweat is H20 NaCl K NH2-CO-NH2

  These questions are neither designed to trap or trick anyone on J-W.com. I'm deadly serious here. Any help you could give me would be much appreciated. Whynow2000 is at a logical impasse.

  Thank you!
• 

  ianao

  Dunscott:

  You seriously need to get a life. I mean, really. I thought I was pretty bad myself, but you're the first person I've ever seen that can be so smart and stupid at the same time, and yet express both points of view fluidly. I don't know whether to take you for an artist or an idiot.

  -ianao
  (shrug class)
• 

  WhyNow2000

  Hi ianao

  I agree completely.
• 

  logical

  My name is logical and I have a problem.

  I AM a problem.
• 

  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
• 

  trevor

  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.
• 

  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