alpha mail

I can dance in front of the mirror, but I like to imitate professional performance dancers from music videos. Dance feels like art, a aesthetic form of knowledge.

When people dance in clubs etc (I used to go) that tend to limit their movements. This feels soooo awkward for me, and inauthentic. So am I the opposite of normal? It basic blending in dancing the norm and easy for most people?

Please describe some atheist architecture from your imagination.

I would make an artificial biome, with a information centre adjoined, a relaxation lounge with light coloured mosaic tiled walls, and a multi faith prayer room for inclusiveness. The biome would be glass, or glass like, and the adjacent building would be in the shape of the shape of the crown on the Statue of Liberty!

I mean "stealing is wrong" or "murder is wrong". IMO a moral rule true by definition that makes it universally valid, without exception.

I know rules have emotive content, but I am assuming they can have a truth value of sorts.

Like the phrase "please, don't murder me" is spoken,

because

"murdering me is wrong" is true.

I think the other alternative is contextualism, theft and murder are wrong, its true, but not in ever circumstance. Like," We need to turn the light on!", is true of a night time more often than it is on a sunny day.

Philosophy used to be "love of wisdom" and in Greece it was asked "who is the wisest?". I think Thales is famous for winning that contest. But nowadays its an academic discipline....

Set theory, logic, problem of induction, deconstructionism etc.

What if any of modern philosophy helps with lifestyle? Either personally or for society?

If I say that "well being" is necessarily good, because "well" means "good condition", then it is necessarily true that well being (health) is good for the subject. But it is a contingent truth that my health is good for others, it may be or it may not be,

What I want to know is is health is necessarily good, then is the absence of health necessarily bad? I mean, if I am altruistic, is this bad for me (necessarily) if I forego some health, even if it is good for another?

Also if health is necessarily good it is good (for the owner of it) in all possible worlds. But what about the modal fallacy? I am not sure about this. It would go from something like "health is good, necessarily" to "necessarily, health is good".... but I don't know modal logic symbolism well enough to analyse the actual fallacy in terms of health and make sense of it.

So please help!!!

Please try and assume that"Health is good" is analytic, and go from there into modal logic; unless I've made a major mistake somewhere.

Thanks, AM.

Ethics is (or ought to be) abourt "rational attraction to being".

To me it makes sense because our ethical dimension is an evolutionary adaptation.

define true religion, are variations acceptable and is vagueness humbling

Please explain how freudian theory of ego defence and pshycodynamic mechanisms can be used to interpret "spiritual warfare". Eg introjection of Jesus etc.

All is vanity? Abel means vanity, breath, vapour, transitoriness - so did the writer of "all is vanity" allude to the strory of Cain and Abel? Meaning, basically, that good works are wiped out and "acquired" by the "spear" of Cain?

Or do I need another coffee?

Is this a basis for an ontological arguemnt? If God is the attractive, then a priori such is more likely to exist than the repulsive. That which is the most attractive therefore exists necessarily, and the most repulsive is impossible.

I have not gone into detail but it "kinda makes sense",so what do you think?

Some argue that there are better rational explanations for the universe than "God did it!"....

But on a moral or aecthetic plane, what could be a better cause of the cosmos and our existence than the "summum bonum" or highest good?

Logically speaking, you cant get better than the best.

So threrefore, are the deniers to be classed as pessimistic? Or just realists with sense of disappointment?

"Im fallible but the bible isnt"

"Im fallible but the Koran isnt"

Fallibilists claim they may always be wrong about any belief they hold.

Can a faliblist consistently believe they know scripture to be infallible, yes or no, and why?

Al Kindi

He is regarded as the first, or one of the first, Muslim philosophers.

Wtat were his central ideas, or what was he famous for?

If I dont discuss this stuff socially I'll never learn....

Is it true that even secularists by and large want to dissociate their moral theory from the theory of evolution? What can evolution based thinking say about moral threory etc?

Lets assume that every statement is an assertion.

"a-> this earth is watery."

"a -> the moon is speroid"

If we say not~a-> the moon is speroid that would be to deny the moon is speroid.

Now the liar paradon.

"a-> this sentence is false."

Now we have a contradiciton ie "a->" and "this is false"

So we have a contradiction from which anything can be derived (by the principle of explosion).

For example the moon is a cube:

"a-> this sentence is false" OR the moon is a cube (by addition (true because "this sentence is false" is regarded as true))

" a-> this sentence is false" (now regarded as false because its falsehood is asserted to be true) OR the moon is a cube ... by disjunctive syllogismm

Therefore the moon is a cube, thats the only option remaining.

^^^^^

thoughts????

Either A there is at least some truth or B there is no truth.

B is absurd, because it would (apparently) be true that there is no truth.

Therefore A is a necessary truth, by RAA.

Truth exists necessarily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Afaik a polish logician called Łukasiewicz invented 3 valued logic(s), one of them treating future events as neither true not false but only "possible".

I was thinking that people use a similar "logic" (although not so rigorous) when dealing with faith. Some say "I neither disbelieve notr believe in God, I am an agnostic" - agnosticism bein seen as a third option.

I explained atheist and theistic agnosticism to a self styled agnostic once, saying they were the only 2 valid opsions, and he still insisted he was neither a believer nr a disbeliever, but an "agnostic". He neither believed nor disbelieved, but "didn't know".

What are your thoughts on this YA?

...put the conceptual strike and counter strike aside...

... forget about conflicting beliefs in the YA community...

...we all like peace...

so please say something peaceful!

Is this a good idea?

A house built on firm ground will last, or not? A nation divided against itself cannot stand, or not? Is the scientific critical method relevant to the religious domain?