den_wolf

You are quite right. but note that you said "degree of cultural acceptance." I am not talking about acceptance of conclusions, but rather the very premises on which the entire philosophy is based. And if by that you meant that the degree of a culture's acceptance has nothing to do with the validity of these premises, then you are correct again. The fact that there are different cultural views and belief systems doesn't mean that there are no absolute truths. But at the same time, if you assimilate something into your thought and proof process without proving, observing, or recording it, then I am afraid you are hanging by the thread of cultural relativism. Yes, so, are the proofs that relied on the assumption that the Earth was flat still valid? The earth was far from proven to be flat. It was only thought so by the Church, and all those who said otherwise were considered heretics. And another good example of "it was widely thought to be X, yet it was wrong" could be God, no? Are you telling me that we should make the same mistake as they did in assuming that the earth was flat?

If you don't trust Microsoft, then you should not be using its Operating System. As simple as that.

In order for philosophy to be universal, one must base one's premises on claims, observations, or EVEN assumptions that are UNIVERSAL. You cannot create a universal philosophy from local assumptions. You can only create a localised philosophy based on localised assumptions. Let's see: my premises: -God exists (1) -if God exists, human beings must exist (2) my conclusion: -therefore human beings exist. (let's say this is my proof, not saying that the process is true). (3) If (1) is true and (2) is true, then (3) is true. But if (1) is false OR (2) is false, (3) does not follow, since by "Zero of ^", p ^ false =* false. * where "=" here is the triple bar symbol of equivalence. And to add to THOTH's points, how about the argument that the Earth is flat? I mean, can we really prove it without relying on the basic things such as A = A, which CAN be proven or observed (whereas God's existence cannot) [hence why EVERYONE accepts that A = A, no matter which culture they live in, whereas not everyone accepts the idea of God, hence why you cannot use it for a universal philosophy]. Haha, that is the language of a lot of philosophers. It could be the translation from Latin, as a lot of them wrote in the language.

I did not assume anything. I brought up the A = A to prove that truth/facts can be proven or observed, and hence used in proofs, contrary to beliefs such as the existence of God. You stated that A = A was an assumption, and that philosophy has to be based on such assumptions. I was arguing for the opposite. I'm not arguing with you, I'm arguing around you, so no need to get defensive.

A fine example of the False Dilemma fallacy. But to answer your question, I would choose A, no matter how much I dislike it. Because by choosing B, you are only delaying your chances of a "revolution." You must drive the pathetics to the edge of the cliff so that they'd all fall off, in order to have a better chance at re-building a society based on solid values and belief systems.

I never said politicians don't take any action. I was simply toying with the idea of whether or not we need politicians. Unproven assumptions have no place in philosophical proofs. To address your point about philosophers becoming politicians, no indeed they will not. You think too lightly of philosophers. Philosophers are not supposed to be subjective and materialistic. They are supposed to transcend the boundaries of subjectivism and materialism in implementing systems and thought processes. Politician is simply a label. If you consider the person who gets to sit in a president's office a politician, then a philosopher who gets to sit in that office (not the temporary act of sitting, I'm talking about serving a presidency term) would be considered a politician, yes. But would he cease to be a philosopher? And one would've thought that someone who makes his living on Philosophy would've read Plato and Aristotle.

No indeed I did not. I was being sarcastic. There are some things one can use as premises, and some things one cannot. Your analogy of the use of A = A as a premise to the existence of God as a premise is a fallacy of Faulty Analogy.

All of political thought is based on philosophy. What popular culture nowadays portrays as politics and parliamentary sessions has its roots deeply in philosphy, political philosophy, which is why there is something called political science (compared to politics). People like Spinoza, Nietzche, Kant, Hegel, Hobbes, More, Orwell (read Animal Farm!!!), etc. have all had their share of contribution. And if you think politics was developed and formed by people like Bush, well then, feel free to continue to think so! I think Armenia (and all other countries), need a sane and working political system, one that is not based on practicality and materialism (like "democracy" is), but rather on philosophical and moral values. Once we achieve that, we would no longer need to attempt to make the world a Utopia, and in the process making it a Dystopia. Democracy is not a Utopia, and it cannot possibly achieve anything remotely close to it.

I know about the axioms in discrete math (symmetry, etc.), but my proof is not mathematically or scientifically oriented, but rather philosophically. Moreover, if, let's say, A on the left side of the "equation" symbolises something, why would you use the same symbol for something that is on the other side of the equation? there is no proof to that, is there? First of all, not all cultures believe in the presence of God. Some cultures are based on atheism, some on monotheism, some on polytheism. So summarising it to make things simpler, there are two categories, one that believes in (a) God(s), and one that does not. So who is right and who is wrong? Certainly, being the majority does not make it right philosophically speaking, does it? So if we are to use the Cultural Differences Argument, the entire proof system collapses, because the premise concerns what people believe. In some societies, people believe in reincarnation (in the form of animals, etc.), in some others, they don't. So if you are a philosopher in culture A and are arguing for the validity of your proofs based on your beliefs, how valid would those proofs be in culture B? This is where Cultural Relativism comes into play to show that the assumption that God exists cannot be taken into account in ethical proofs. Cultural relativism is self-destructive, not to mention hypocritical. And to use the God argument in one's formal proof is the equivalent of arguing, in a Muslim society, that the Bible condems polygamy (or some such. I'm no authority on the Bible). What I was trying to demonstrate, in fact, is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. And the term "premise" is not the same as "assumption"; there are inherent differences between the two. So using the argument that God is believed to exist by the vast majority of people, therefore it's a safe/good assumption is an "argumentum ad populum" fallacy (appeal to popularity). I don't follow. How do you know we are the "part", and not the "whole"? To add to that, you are using the fallacy of Composition by saying that since we (the part) have the attribute of existence, God (the whole) must necessarily have the attribute of existence. Moreover, if we cannot prove that God exists, it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. And if we cannot prove that God doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that God exists. But in case of being unable to prove that God exists, you cannot assume that God exists. Why? Because you're at point 0 until you claim that you're at point 1 (believing that God exists). Without the idea that God might exist, one cannot try to prove that God exists. But to get back to the question of the existence of God, here is a very interesting attempt at proof, albeit guilty of the fallacy of Hasty Generalisation: 1. If God exists then he is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. 2. If God were omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent then the world would not contain evil. 3. The world contains evil. Therefore: 4. It is not the case that God exists. Note that (1) is fallacious, since the existence of God would not mean that he is benevolent (again, cultural relativism). So the first premise is a Hasty Generalisation. So if not all ideas of God include benevolence, it would not follow that all Gods would eradicate evil or to even disallow its existence to begin with.

Pardon me, I must be going to bed, it's 6 a.m here, but I will address your post when I wake up.

Who says I am not married and don't have kids? Who says I don't pay mortage or rent? Who says I don't have responsibilities? Who says I don't have a job? No, I did not apply for financial aid. I work part-time and do my Master's part-time, otherwise I wouldn't be able to afford it. And for the record, the money that goes into student loans comes from responsible PEOPLE, not politicians. Politicians only have the "duty" of privatising that money. If we had a non-political, philosophical system for the distribution of funds, we would not be having problems of discrimination or reverse discrimination. It is politicians who seek to put a band aid on the problem. Philosophers aim to analyse it and find a permanent solution to it. They are the bridge between the abstact and the practical, between the material and the immaterial. And for the record, I worked, went to school, paid my tuition fees, AND my cancer treatment costs all at the same time, while undergoing treatment. How's that for politicians? Let's see how many of them are willing to do something as minute as sticking to their word, let alone trying to implement a fair system for all.

Well, sure, if you want me to, although it might not suit your expectations of what a valid "proof" is, but here you go: If "=" is defined by human beings to mean that two things are/mean the same exact thing, placing A and A beside each other, we can prove, by the shape, that they are equal. An apple is an apple is an apple. It is not an assumption. It is a premise. There is a difference between the two.

INDEED. All those are philosophical issues that would be solved if it weren't for politicians.

One can only assume one's existence as a premise, because if that is not done, everything falls apart. Existence can be an assumption simply because without existing, one cannot make these arguments. Proving that we exist is begging the question, because if you can attempt to prove that you exist, that means you already exist. Proving that God exists, however, is something totally different, because it is something outside of ourselves, and it is possible for us to live without it, hence why atheism CAN exist. If we disbelieve in our existence, all we would do is stop doing anything, which would, at any rate, prove that we exist, because we are reacting to the change in outlook. A = A is a truth. And it can be proven. Hence, truth can be proven. We could go on and on in circles asking questions such as "do we really exist?", but the very fact that we can do that proves that we do exist. Otherwise you and I would not be here. This is not an assumption. It is an observation of the truth and reality. Things that cannot be testified to by human beings cannot be used as the premises of an argument, because the entire thought process would crumble under its weight.

Philosophers don't think so.

Ohhh, that would be grand, except there's always the danger that us wolves would eat you mice. Maybe we should sign a binding contract for that one too.

Philosophers. That's what we're here for. Politicians are the bane of the world, philosophers are its salvation. And I am very serious about this.

Vava, for me, the problem is not about the lack of good candidates. It is about the nature of human beings and how power hungry they are. Even those who claim to be "good" and not motivated by hunger for money or power (but rather to serve the nation), once voted in or elected, become like the people they were criticising during their campaign. Sure, you could "trust" their campaign platform, but those are only words, and there is no binding contract that makes them keep their word. And this is the basic flaw of political systems.

There is a difference between beliefs that are proven and beliefs that are nothing more than personal observations that have not been proven to be correct by the processes of logic and epistemology. One cannot base one's philosophical proofs (not talking about beliefs here) on beliefs of the latter sort. That is called Simple Subjectivism. James Rachels' book puts it very eloquently: all mean "I (the speaker) approve of X" The above is not about philosophical and epistemological proof. It is about individual philosophical beliefs. Those are two separate and distinct things. In order to prove that we are God's creations, one must first prove that God exists, rather than relying on Simple Subjectivism.

I would HIGHLY recommend that you read Phyllis Trible's "Eve and Adam: Genesis 2-3 Reread." Phyllis Tribble, Andover Newton Quarterly, Vol. 13, © March 1973, pp. 74-83 The original sin was, as Armen said, about eating the forbidden fruit, which resulted in the fall.

How do they manifest themselves in society? That our system is unfair and imperfect doesn't mean that movements to make it better are also imperfect. You are jumping from point A to point B without having a bridge to cross. I am against affirmative action, because it begs the question (tries to solve racism, sexism, etc by racism, sexism, etc) Advocating for equal rights does not mean that women should have privileges over men in applying for jobs. It simply means that women should be CONSIDERED as possible applicants and holders of those jobs. You are confusing two different things: It's one thing for a man who had it all to lose half of what he had (opportunities) in order for the woman to be on the same level as he, it's another thing for a man to lose half of what he had just because his counterparts are of the female sex. The former is called equality, the latter, privilege. I don't think there can be an absolute level of equality that could last for longer than a fraction of a second, until the balance shifts again, perhaps in the other direction. There can be patriarchy or matriarchy, but there cannot be absolute and total equality.

Trust me, it's not so hard to convince people. It's called modes (or techniques) of persuasion.

Choosing not to vote has very firm philosophical underpinnings. It is the most philosophical position compared to choosing to vote for any other party. It is often interpreted as being "dumb," but it is very ethically driven, although not without its failings. Having the right to vote does not mean that it is the right thing to do, philosophically speaking. This is more about principle than it is about making change. It is about refusing to support one or the other simply because one is put in a fallacious position of false dilemma (dichotomy - either you're with us or against us). It is, an individual response, hence why there is so much disagreement about it. It's about emotivism. I'm assuming you're not a big fan of that.

Angel4hope, Sir Thomas More would've argued about it in a similar manner (although that is a bit of an interpretation of his writings on my part), since he satirised the concept of Utopia by putting it in an almost "step-by-step" handbook form, as if to say that it's so easy to achieve. What we live in is a dystopia. And in our constant attempts to create a utopia, we end up creating this dystopia. This is the state USA is in right now. Same goes for any other country in the world.

Men and women ARE different physically, and perhaps even in the way they think about things (Heinz's Dilemma, and so on), but that does not imply that they are unequal or that they should be. Different does not mean unequal, and by "equal" I don't mean "having the same personality or characteristics", I mean "equal in the social aspect" (rights). If you can jump from physical (or even emotional) difference to justifying anti-feminism, you have to provide reasons for doing so, because if you cannot prove that those differences were in fact meant to put men in a position of control, you're position is null and void.