Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[3017Metaphysician]

Terrapin Station,

Unless we've overlooked something more dubious, your logic doesn't square with your belief system on many levels. I'll be more than happy to continue, however, depending on your response (and based upon your previous responses which we can certainly re-visit), you may not be up for the challenge (deconstructing your logic viz metaphysics):

All humans have purpose
Terrapin Station is a human
Therefore, Terrapin Station has purpose


To which Terrapin Station relied: "false"

Then Terrapin Station replied subsequently (above): "...so how about discussing this... ."

Hence, for one, it begs the question; what is your purpose in wanting to "discuss this" if you have no purpose?

I didn't say, "No humans have a purpose." I said it's false that all do.

If there are 7 billion humans, and 6,999,999,999 have a purpose, but one doesn't, then it's false that all humans have a purpose, right?

Terrapin Station: You seem to be certain in your supposition. Rearrange the proposition's to support your position. Then deconstruct the meaning of purpose to make those premises sound.

??? No idea what either part of that is saying really.

Do you mean to tell me that you don't understand that if one x is not-F, then it's false that all xs are F?

Terrapin Station: You seem to be certain in your supposition. Rearrange the proposition's to support your position. Then deconstruct the meaning of purpose to make those premises sound.

[Terrapin Station]

Terrapin Station: You seem to be certain in your supposition. Rearrange the proposition's to support your position. Then deconstruct the meaning of purpose to make those premises sound.

What in the world does it mean to "rearrange the propositions to support your position"?

Could you give an example?

[Terrapin Station]

By the way, the last post you said "rearrange the propositions to support your position" in response to only had one proposition. How do you rearrange one thing?

[Belindi]

By the way, the last post you said "rearrange the propositions to support your position" in response to only had one proposition. How do you rearrange one thing?

Because the one thing is composed of parts?

I gather that all men purpose means what Schopenhauer means by will. "Will" implies much the same as Sartre implies which is that we can't escape the necessity to make decisions that affect what will be. So 'purpose' and 'will' mean much the same in the context of the stance vis a vis time and relativity to all men. Exceptions are those who are resigned to dying and who go quietly.

[Terrapin Station]

By the way, the last post you said "rearrange the propositions to support your position" in response to only had one proposition. How do you rearrange one thing?

Because the one thing is composed of parts?

I gather that all men purpose means what Schopenhauer means by will. "Will" implies much the same as Sartre implies which is that we can't escape the necessity to make decisions that affect what will be. So 'purpose' and 'will' mean much the same in the context of the stance vis a vis time and relativity to all men. Exceptions are those who are resigned to dying and who go quietly.

Ah. So maybe "The mat is on the cat" or "The cat mat is the on" instead of "The cat is on the mat"? (Although why would we be doing that, lol)

If we're using "purpose" as a synonym for "will," then sure, the set of humans who have (a) purpose would be bigger, but it would still exclude, for example, someone who is in a coma. So it would still be false that all humans have (a) purpose. Unless we want to say that someone is no longer a human being just because they're in a coma. That probably wouldn't go over well as medical ethics, however.

[Pattern-chaser]

...Excluding this topic, which specifically seeks to describe or define "metaphysics", I think the 'everyday' meaning is the one most commonly used in this forum. It may not be the most correct or complete meaning, but it does seem to be the one that is used most often.

Yes, it is indeed that meaning that most people here seem to use. The trouble is, because it means slightly different things to different people, it's the kind of thing that often leads to endless arguments which hinge on people simply using words in different ways to each other.

Yes, this is the issue. But I wonder if it's the issue it seems to be?

A vague and general 'definition', such as you and I have both proposed, is just that. It fails if we try to dissect it, searching (vainly?) for precision and certainty, just as an analogy breaks down if we take it too far. It is surely true that different people understand slightly different things from a general 'definition', but it is also true that they still understand pretty much the same thing in general.

There seems to be an understanding that vague and general descriptions are somehow less than precise, scientific descriptions. I don't think they are, I just think they're different from one another. General ideas have utility; they are useful. But they aren't directly equivalent to more logically-rigorous descriptions, and they don't fulfill the same purpose(s).

[Belindi]

By the way, the last post you said "rearrange the propositions to support your position" in response to only had one proposition. How do you rearrange one thing?

Because the one thing is composed of parts?

I gather that all men purpose means what Schopenhauer means by will. "Will" implies much the same as Sartre implies which is that we can't escape the necessity to make decisions that affect what will be. So 'purpose' and 'will' mean much the same in the context of the stance vis a vis time and relativity to all men. Exceptions are those who are resigned to dying and who go quietly.

Ah. So maybe "The mat is on the cat" or "The cat mat is the on" instead of "The cat is on the mat"? (Although why would we be doing that, lol)

If we're using "purpose" as a synonym for "will," then sure, the set of humans who have (a) purpose would be bigger, but it would still exclude, for example, someone who is in a coma. So it would still be false that all humans have (a) purpose. Unless we want to say that someone is no longer a human being just because they're in a coma. That probably wouldn't go over well as medical ethics, however.

I forgot about being in a coma.

[Terrapin Station]

I didn't say, "No humans have a purpose." I said it's false that all do.

If there are 7 billion humans, and 6,999,999,999 have a purpose, but one doesn't, then it's false that all humans have a purpose, right?

Terrapin Station: You seem to be certain in your supposition. Rearrange the proposition's to support your position. Then deconstruct the meaning of purpose to make those premises sound.

??? No idea what either part of that is saying really.

Do you mean to tell me that you don't understand that if one x is not-F, then it's false that all xs are F?

Terrapin Station: You seem to be certain in your supposition. Rearrange the proposition's to support your position. Then deconstruct the meaning of purpose to make those premises sound.

Are you simply not going to explain what it means to "rearrange the propositions to support your position"?