Against methaphysic

1. We have no perfect idea of anything but of a perception.
2. A substance is entirely different from a perception.
So,
3. We have, therefore, no idea of a substance.

Hume

----------------

Shame on those that intento to solve the unsolvable!

Substances that have not perceptions? Mind, soul, God, matter, existance, etc. To deal with them we need first to show that Hume was wrong. I want to know.

Of course, he just meant that we cannot know the substance. But if we cannot know it, then we better keep our mouth shut.

A large set of arguments to drive us crazy!

Hard determinism
1. All human acts are determined.
2. No determined are free.
So
3. No human acts are free.

Indeterminism
1. Some human acts are free.
2. No determined acts are free.
So
3. Some human acts are not determined.

Soft determinism
1. All acts where you do what you want are free.
2. Some acts where you do what you want are determined.
So
3. Some free acts are determined.

Kant
1. All that is or could be experienced is thinkable.
2. All that is thinkable is expressible in judgments.
3. All that is expressible in judgments is expressible with subjects and predicates.
4. All that is expressible with subjects and predicates is about objects and properties.
So
5. All that is or could be experienced is about objects and properties.

Kant
1. All basic moral norms hold for all possible rational beings as such.
2. No principles based on human natures hold for all possible rational beings as such.
So
3. No basic moral norms are based on human nature.

Hume
1. All moral judgments influence our actions and feelings.
2. Nothing from reason influences our actions and feelings.
So
3. No moral judgments are from reason.

Hume
1. No feelings that diminish when we understand their origins are rational.
2. All culturally taught racist feelings diminish when we understand their origin.
So
3. No culturally taught racial hatreds are rational.

Aristotle
1. All virtues are praised.
2. No emotions are praised.
So
3. No virtues are emotions

Aristotle
1. God is a perfect being.
2. All perfect beings are self-sufficient.
3. No self-sufficient being is influenced by anything outside of itself.
So
4. God is not influenced by anything outside of himself.

Hartshones
1. God is a perfect being.
2. All perfect being knows everything.
3. All beings that know everything are influenced by everything.
So
4. God is influenced by everything.

Ayer
1. Only objectives truths are part of philosophy.
2. Nothing is an objective truth unless it’s experimentally testable.
3. Moral principles aren’t experimentally testable.
So
4. Moral principles aren’t part of philosophy.

Stuart Mill
1. Only language users employ generalizations.
2. Not a single animal uses language.
3. At leas some animals reason.
So
4. Not all reasoners employ generalizations.

Kant
1. Any adequate ethical theory provides necessary and universal principles.
2. Nothing based on sense experience provides necessary and universal principles.
So
3. No adequate ethical theory is based on sense experience.


Kant
1. Whatever events we could experience as empirically real are events that could fit coherently into our experience.
2. No uncaused event is something we could experience as empirically real.
So
3. No uncaused event could fit coherently into our experience.

Bertrand Russell
1. Material objects can be perceived.
2. Only sensations can be perceived.
3. No sensation can exist unperceived.
So
4. No material objects can exist unperceived.


C. S. Lewis
1. There is an objective moral law.
2. If there is an objective moral law, then there is a source of the moral law.
3. If there is a source of the moral law, then there is a God.
So
4. There is a God.

Plato
1. If ethics depends on God’s will, then something is good because God desires it.
2. Something isn’t good because God desires it. (God desires something because it’s already good.)
3. Ethics doesn’t depend on God’s will.

St Anselm’s ontological argument
1. If God exists in the understanding and not in reality, then there can be conceived a being greater than God.
2. There cannot conceive a being greater than God.
3. God exists in the understanding.
So
4. God exists in reality.

St Thomas Aquinas
1. Some things are caused.
2. Any ting caused is caused by another.
3. If some things are caused and anything caused is caused by another, then either there’s a first cause or there’s an infinite series of past causes.
4. There’s no infinite series of past causes.
So
5. There’s a first cause.

Rene Descartes
1. If we have sensations of alleged material objects and yet no material objects exists, then God is a deceiver.
2. God isn’t a deceiver.
3. We have sensations of alleged material objects.
So
4. Material objects exist.

Plato
1. If knowledge is sensation, then pigs have knowledge.
2. Pigs don’t have knowledge.
So
3. Knowledge isn’t sensation.

John Powell
1. If belief in God were a purely intellectual matter, then either all smart people would be believers or all smart people would be non-believers.
2. Not all smart people are believers.
3. Not all smart people are non-believers.
So
4. Belief in God isn’t a purely intellectual matter.

Aristotle
1. If there’s knowledge, then either some things are known withoug proof or we can prove every premise by previous arguments infinitely.
2. We can’t prove every premise by previous arguments infinitely.
3. There’s knowledge.
So
4. Some things are known without proof.

David Hume
1. If we have an idea of a substance, then “substance” refers either to a simple sensation or to a complex constructed out of simple sensations.
2. “Substance” doesn’t refer to a simple sensation.
So
3. We don’t have an idea of substance.

Immanuel Kant
1. If we have an idea of “substance” and our idea of “substance” doesn’t derive from sensations, then “substance” is a thought category of pure reason.Our idea of “substance” doesn’t derive from sensations.
2. We have an idea of “substance.”
So
3. “Substance” is a thought category of pure reason.

Plato
1. We do not sense everything.
2. We know things that we do not sense.
So
3. Knowledge can’t be a sensation.

William of O’ckham
1. If God is omnipotent, then he could make hatred inherently good –unless there’s a contradiction in hatred being inherently good.
2. The last sentence has not contradiction.
So
3. God could make hatred inherently good.

Soul and body duality and Plato

1. The idea of a perfect circle is a human concept.
2. The idea of a perfect circle doesn't derive from sense experience.
3. All ideas gained in our earthly existence derive from sense experience.
So
4. Some human concepts aren't ideas gained in our earthly existence.

Plato.

-----------------------
'2' is suspicious because the concept of a perfect circle could be culturally taught.
'3' is a problem because we might have some ideas not gained from sense experience. For example, the idea of the square root of minus 1 in math. This is an imaginary and very useful concept that does not correspond to any sense experience.

Pragmatic argument to belief in God

1. The belief in God gives practical life benefits.
2.All beliefs that give practical life benefits are pragmatically justifiable.
So
3. The belief in God is pragmatically justifiable.
William James

-------------------------------
Question:
Does believing in God give practical benefits? Millions of people have been murdered in religious wars.

Issue:
We find "practical" in the subject and "pragmatical" (another word for practical) in the predicate. Read and consider 'All beliefs that blacken something are justified by the color black.'
It seemst similar to A=A. Meaningless.

God existance

1. The belief that there's a God is unnecessary to explain our experience.
2. All beliefs unncessary to explain our experience ought to be rejected.
So
3. The belief that there's a God ought to be rejected.

-----------
Valid? Indeed.
Solid? St. Thomas Aquinas disputed (1) to prove the existance of good.

If we changed it to:
1. They belief thate there's a God is neccesary to explain our experience.
2. All beliefs necessary to explain are experience ought to be accepted.
So
3. The belief that there's a God ought to be accepted.

Then, we have a proof of the existance of God. Science would say that it is just random walk and the result of the law of the large numbers .Your choice.

Are you an utilitarian?

1. All acts that maximize good consequences are right.
2. Some punishing of the innocent maximize good consequences.
So
3.Some punishing of the innocent is right.

Versus

1. No punishing of the innocent is right.
2. Some punishing of the innocent maximizes good consequences.
So
3. Some acts that maximize good consequences aren't right.

-------------------

The first argument justifies all wars and, the second, justifies peace under Hittler's, Maos, Stalins.
You choose because both are valid arguments. Their solidity will depend on our understanding of right and wrong, and on the value of a human life. Logic will not help you! What will help you?
That is something to discuss later.

All segregation laws are injust

1. All segregation laws degrade human personality.
2. All laws that degrades human personity are injust.
So
3. All segregration laws are injust

Martin Luther King.
------------
A valid argument.
Solid? It depends:

1.Segregation laws degrading human personality. We segregated the sanes from the insanes, guilties from innocents, etc. Segregration sometimes is necessary.

2. What is justices?