# The study of philosophy can never yield concrete answers

Author: TheRealNihilist ,

## Topic's posts

Posts in total: 120
• Debates: 44
Forum posts: 4,909
4
8
11
A standard that can self-verify itself is impossible.

Meaning all we can do is use a standard to compare other standards in the hope we find answers that would suffice us.

We can't appeal to an objective standard so we use the best things we got.

• Debates: 3
Forum posts: 8,892
3
4
8
--> @TheRealNihilist
The study of philosophy can never yield concrete answers
The study of philosophy can yield concrete answers regarding Quantifiable AXIOMS.

The study of philosophy can NEver yield concrete answers regarding Qualitative AXIOMS.

Expecting concrete answers from Qualitative AXIOMS is like saying,

1 + 1 = 2 (THEREFORE) I love you.
• Debates: 44
Forum posts: 4,909
4
8
11
--> @3RU7AL
The study of philosophy can yield concrete answers regarding Quantifiable AXIOMS.
Give me a quantifiable axiom.

Please make it short as well.
• Debates: 3
Forum posts: 8,892
3
4
8
--> @TheRealNihilist
(IFF) free = uninfluenced (AND) (IFF) will = goal-seeking (THEN) it is impossible for any action to be BOTH free and willed.

Any free action must necessarily be indistinguishable from a random action.

Any willed action must necessarily be influenced (motivated by desire and influenced by an imagined outcome).
• Debates: 44
Forum posts: 4,909
4
8
11
--> @3RU7AL
Quantifiable axiom?
• Debates: 3
Forum posts: 8,892
3
4
8
--> @TheRealNihilist
free = uninfluenced
• Debates: 44
Forum posts: 4,909
4
8
11
--> @3RU7AL
So is free a quantifiable axiom?
• Debates: 3
Forum posts: 8,892
3
4
8
--> @TheRealNihilist
So is free a quantifiable axiom?
"Free" is Quantifiable when it is rigorously defined.

Can you Quantify influence?

Yes, I believe you can.

AND, (IFF) you can Quantify influence (THEN) you can Quantify free-of-influence.
• Debates: 44
Forum posts: 4,909
4
8
11
--> @3RU7AL
"Free" is Quantifiable when it is rigorously defined.
So on its own it is not quantifiable meaning you require other axioms as in we use the same definition of free?

• Debates: 3
Forum posts: 8,892
3
4
8
--> @TheRealNihilist
"Free" is Quantifiable when it is rigorously defined.
So on its own it is not quantifiable meaning you require other axioms as in we use the same definition of free?
Your AXIOMS must be defined.

(IFF) blimofoth + plimlock = flipitormop (THEN) shemitig = flamitor

Without definitions, logic is unverifiable (incoherent).

Even something as simple as "3" is just a meaningless squiggle to the uninitiated.

(IFF) your AXIOMS are comprised of purely Qualitative terms (like "love" and "justice" and "common-sense") (THEN) your logic is UNVERIFIABLE (unQuantifiable).

That is, of course, unless you make your definitions EXPLICIT and tie them to Quantifiable data points.
• Debates: 44
Forum posts: 4,909
4
8
11
--> @3RU7AL
So an axiom is that we have to agree on definitions?
• Debates: 3
Forum posts: 8,892
3
4
8
--> @TheRealNihilist
So an axiom is that we have to agree on definitions?
Yes.

An AXIOM is the basic building-block of a logical statement.
• Debates: 44
Forum posts: 4,909
4
8
11
--> @3RU7AL
If we agree on the definition what would people be arguing again?

If people agree on the definition of cause and effect and God, they will understand they contradict one another but they don't.
• Debates: 3
Forum posts: 8,892
3
4
8
--> @TheRealNihilist
If we agree on the definition what would people be arguing again?
We may agree on definitions, but still disagree on the logical implications.

If people agree on the definition of cause and effect and God, they will understand they contradict one another but they don't.
Most arguments (claims) about gods are naked appeals to ignorance.

This is why it is important to make your definition of gods EXPLICIT when presenting or considering any such argument.

For example, Spinoza's god is rigorously defined and logically coherent, but most THEISTS don't subscribe to Spinoza's definition of god.
• Debates: 44
Forum posts: 4,909
4
8
11
--> @3RU7AL
We may agree on definitions, but still disagree on the logical implications.
Logical implications will require us to demonstrate what type of logic we use right?

• Debates: 3
Forum posts: 8,892
3
4
8
--> @TheRealNihilist
We may agree on definitions, but still disagree on the logical implications.
Logical implications will require us to demonstrate what type of logic we use right?
Yes.

Your logic must be verifiably sound.
• Debates: 44
Forum posts: 4,909
4
8
11
--> @3RU7AL
What happens if people use different types of logic?
• Debates: 3
Forum posts: 8,892
3
4
8
--> @TheRealNihilist
What happens if people use different types of logic?
• Debates: 44
Forum posts: 4,909
4
8
11
--> @3RU7AL
particular way of thinkingespecially one that is reasonable and based on good judgment: Link

A thinks God is real and says it is reasonable to say so.
B thinks God is not real and says it is reasonable to say so.

Neither of them can find common ground when it comes to challenging those positions given both use different forms of logic.

• Debates: 3
Forum posts: 8,892
3
4
8
--> @TheRealNihilist
A thinks God is real and says it is reasonable to say so.
Please define the respective terms, "god" and "real" and "reasonable".

The claim, "god is real" is a bald assertion (appeal to ignorance), EXPLICIT AXIOMS are required to support such a claim in order for it to be considered coherent.

B thinks God is not real and says it is reasonable to say so.
Please define the respective terms, "god" and "real" and "reasonable".

The claim, "god is NOT real" is a bald assertion (appeal to ignorance), EXPLICIT AXIOMS are required to support such a claim in order for it to be considered coherent.

Neither of them can find common ground when it comes to challenging those positions given both use different forms of logic.
There are only two types of logic, SOUND AND UNSOUND.

SOUND logic is coherent.  UNSOUND logic is incoherent.
• Debates: 44
Forum posts: 4,909
4
8
11
--> @3RU7AL
SOUND logic is coherent.  UNSOUND logic is incoherent.
I gave a definition. You are deciding to add stuff that is not a part of logic.

Logic can be incoherent. Just say it is reasonable to be incoherent.
• Debates: 3
Forum posts: 8,892
3
4
8
--> @TheRealNihilist
SOUND logic is coherent.  UNSOUND logic is incoherent.
I gave a definition. You are deciding to add stuff that is not a part of logic.

Logic can be incoherent. Just say it is reasonable to be incoherent.
Incoherent logic is not logic.

If you write a computer program that is incoherent, it will not function.

Logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. It deals only with propositions (declarative sentences, used to make an assertion, as opposed to questions, commands or sentences expressing wishes) that are capable of being -true- and -false-. It is not concerned with the psychological processes connected with thought, or with emotions, images and the like. It covers core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, as well as specialized analysis of reasoning using probability and arguments involving causality and argumentation theory.

Logical systems should have three things: -consistency- (which means that none of the theorems of the system contradict one another); soundness (which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference from a true premise); and completeness (which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved in the system). [LINK]
• Debates: 44
Forum posts: 4,909
4
8
11
--> @3RU7AL
"Logic (from the Greek "logos", which has a variety of meanings including word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason or principle) is the study of reasoning"

From your link. Nothing about coherence or incoherence and you are still avoiding my definitions and your very own link confirms what I am saying.
• Debates: 3
Forum posts: 8,892
3
4
8
--> @TheRealNihilist
Ok, this definition is riddled with Qualitative terminology.

particular way of thinkingespecially one that is reasonable and based on good judgmentLink
Please explain what you mean by "reasonable".

A thinks God is real and says it is reasonable to say so.
That doesn't explain what they think god is and it doesn't explain how they distinguish real from imaginary.

B thinks God is not real and says it is reasonable to say so.
That doesn't explain what they think god is and it doesn't explain how they distinguish real from imaginary.

(IFF) you want to insist that incoherent statements are reasonable (THEN) you cannot distinguish real from imaginary.

And, that also means (IFF) 1 + 1 = 2 (THEN) I love you.
• Debates: 3
Forum posts: 8,892
3
4
8
--> @TheRealNihilist
Nothing about coherence or incoherence...
Logical systems should have three things: -consistency- (which means that none of the theorems of the system contradict one another); soundness (which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference from a true premise); and completeness (which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved in the system). [LINK]

CONSISTENCY = COHERENCE