Compare, the fatalistic slogan "whatever will happen will happen" with the two slogans, "business is business", and "war is war" (we might call them "the cynical slogans"). And just as the cynical slogans taken in one way are trivially true, and taken in a different (non-trivial) way are, to say the least, morally controversial, so the fatalistic slogan, taken in one way, is trivially true, but taken in another way, is, to say the least, empirically controversial.

Because its repeated use is odd.

Just so you know, I am not interpretting that as an ominous threat on my life.

Because its repeated use is odd.

Just so you know, I am not interpretting that as an ominous threat on my life.

Are there more of these kinds of sentences? Trivially true on one interpretation, controversial on the other, and ambiguous? I asked you somewhere else too but I didn't see any reply. Maybe I forgot to look in the thread again.

Thank you and, good tidings.

but why think that because an event has passed that it was therefore unavoidable? You shouldn't.
---------- Post added 05-12-2010 at 05:28 PM ----------

You're killin' me!

Hi Ken,

I've run this one by many a fair mind, and know not of any selfless action.
Can you supply one for me to analyse, or an argument that seems to?

Thank you Ken, journey well.

Mark...

I mentioned the view that all actions are selfish. That is not equivalent to some actions are selfless. It is not true that all actions must be either selfish, or if not selfish, selfless. My taking a nap when tired is neither selfish nor selfless.

So, taking a nap in the afternoon when I am tired is not selfless. But it is not selfish either. It is morally neutral.

I suppose there are a lot of them, since philosophers live off them. What about psychological egoism, "Everyone acts from selfish motives"?

Oh yeah, that's a good one. Used to fool me when I was younger, I'd say about 17. I dropped the idea completely after reading this.

Egoism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Hello Emil,

Don't assume that because it is written - That it is truth.

I'll start a thread on this soon, to prove psychological egoism to be integrally flawed.

Nice to meet you, by the way.

Thankyou and be merry.

Mark...

Ok .... Did you think that I thought that if it were written, then it is true? What kind of moron would believe that anyway?

That something is written may not imply that what is written is true, but it does suggest that what is written is true. Some say that we shouldn't assume that "if something is written, then it is therefore true," and perhaps they are correct, yet we shouldn't question every claim made by the authors that have written what they have if we are only beginning to understand what we're being told.

For example, if you are reading a logic textbook for the first time, it's okay to question certain things that stand out as you go along, but unless there is a substantially good reason not to believe what is being said, then we should not let that "imply" "suggest" distinction escape us and impede our progress; after all, because what is being said suggests that what is written is true, it indeed stands as a reason for believing that it MAY be true; of course, it doesn't imply that what is written is true, but because it's suggested that it may be true, there's nothing wrong with temporarily assuming that it is true-- so long as there's no countervailing reasons for thinking otherwise.

Awe shucks. That's no problem--no problem at all.


Sometimes, I don't know if it's the not thinking that gets us into trouble or the thinking that messes us up. When I was younger, I recall being told that I could easily avoid putting my foot in my mouth if only I'd think before I speak, but I've found that people who are essentially beginners at philosophizing get themselves into more trouble with their thinking than they would if they'd just stick with what they thought before they began thinking so intensely on a philosophical problem. Wild thinking left unchecked can lead to some rather bizarre beliefs.

I suppose doing philosophy right (analytical philosophy, that is--I can't speak for them continental's ya know) is a learned skill. Before we can get really good at philosophizing, we first need to learn how to think with a bit of structure, or logically as it were. Doing philosophy without a minimal understanding of logic is like walking on quicksand. An understanding of logic and argumentation will provide a swell foundation for our philosophical journey.

I wonder why. I wonder why you don't know past events were avoidable. Have you worn a seatbelt lately? Could you not have avoided the consequences of your choice by making an alternative choice? You say you have no intentions of killing me, but surely you think you'd be morally responsible if you did, right? Yet, if it wasn't avoidable, then who would lock you away? If it's unavoidable, then what could you have done to prevent it from happening? If it's unavoidable, then there's nothing you could have done. Surely you know better than that.

Or, maybe the issue you're having has to do with knowledge. After all you say you don't know. Well, I think you do know. The widely recognized necessary conditions of knowledge are 1) you believe what you do, 2) what you believe is true, and 3) the belief is justified. You do believe that you can avoid putting on your seatbelt, and you believe you can avoid killing me don't you? It's true that you can avoid putting on your seatbelt, and it's true that you can avoid killing me, right? Don't you have justification for thinking you can indeed avoid putting on a seatbelt ... and killing me? Yes, yes, and yes, so yes, events are avoidable. You do know.

Are you so certain that it's impossible that you could be mistaken? No, but talk about raising the bar!!! No one can be that certain, so does that mean we don't really know while we think we do? That's silly. Of course we know things. To think we don't know anything is absurd. You'd have to be committed to saying you believe you don't know 2+2= four; imagine how silly that would be. See how thinking gets people in trouble? Left unchecked, people who try to critically think without some understanding of logic is bound to make some mistakes along the way, and the more that's made, the more other mistakes that build upon those mistakes are made, and the longer people go on with those beliefs, the greater the possibility they have of becoming a famous philosopher.

Oh yes, the greatest philosophers are the one's who have made the greatest mistakes. But, don't aspire to make mistakes, for I assure you, the one's you (and I) make along the way have been done a thousand fold.


Truth is independent of your ability to prove anything, so even if you can't prove it (which I don't know why you couldn't), it's still the case that events that have already taken place could have been avoided.

I didn't quite understand that last part about indisputable


You continue to be nice. I don't know where you're from, but around these parts, we do not say be merry. Well, during Christmas, we say merry Christmas--well, some of us do anyway.

PS: there's nothing wrong with being nice.

Stay out of Hallmark.

Oh, and before I forget: be merry