"Put up, or shut up" as the adage goes...

It doesn't because you just talked right over me instead of explaining why you are saying fatalism has two senses in one post and then agreeing that it only has one sense in another. Please explain that. Did you make a mistake or what? That's all I want to know. You can save your walls of text trying to explain something I already know.

If I did, I probably miswrote. I did not know you were not interested in the problem, but only in why I happened to mis-write. I should have known, of course. You always get right to the heart of the matter. And you always knew why fatalism is wrong, too. I was under the impression that you did not because you never indicated that. Another mistake on my part. I should have read your mind.

There are things we do, and there are things that happen to us. Catching a Frisbee is something we do. Falling down, on the other hand, isn't something we do; instead, falling down is something that happens to us.

However, all that above assumes that we have free will. If we instead assume as hard determinists assume, then we'll need to assume that we have no free will. If there is no free will, then everything that we think we do isn't something we do; rather, it's something that happens to us. In fact, in a world with no free will (not even a smidgen), there is no human that does anything.

If aliens came down and put us all in prison, our freedom to do as we please would no longer be the case, but not even that scenario takes away all free will; even prisoners are free to read their books, so though they can't go and come as they please, it's not that they have no free will; instead, their freedom to do as they please is severely limited.

ETA: A possible objection is that getting into a car against my will is something I do, but that is not an example of choicelessness.

Well, no. Not if it proves you don't know what you are talking about.

...and, hopefully, there arises the subsequent motivation to remedy that ignorance.

But not by talking.

Whoever said logical devices don't have a defined meaning? What do you think "natural deduction" is? Semantic truth-tables for the logical connectives in propositional logic are definitions of these symbols.



You simply don't have a clue what are talking about.



Since when? Tell me one logician who says this about formal symbols in a formal language.



What does this even mean? Explain.



Yes! It is self-evident in what you say or, rather--fail to say!



What is the symbol "x" in logic? Can you even tell me it's purpose?



What does that even mean?



Either Ax or Ex.



Independent of what?



What does this even mean? Nonsense.



Huh? That didn't even explain what you said previously, but only succeeded in making your ideas even more confusing.



That's right. I can't read a person's mind through a wreckage of B.S. Try again.



Say something substantive about logic, instead of making a fool of yourself! Give me a break!

Logic is a process of relation and not an independent one...

Logic without terms is an empty set of non relations...

Logic implies time and space,

cause and consequence,

Now address it please or go preach to someone else:

1 - Logic has a nature can you define its nature ?

2 - Logic is intrinsic or extrinsic to the terms ? (between terms or in the terms themselves)

3 - Are concepts finite or infinite ?

4 - What is the Logic of Logic ?

Do you think a wall of formalities will prevent you to address this issues ? You are wrong !

That's precisely the virtue of logic, not its vice. It deals with form and structure, not content. So what's your point?

It does? How so? Can you give me a logical proof of this?

Logical entailment and material implication are not causal relations. No logician confuses the two. Besides, the direction of the ground/consequence relation is opposite of that of causal relations. A causes B is not the same as saying "my thinking or observing B is my reason for concluding/deducing A.

"nature"? Logic has nothing to do with "natures." Logic is the formal discipline that studies the rules of correct thinking.

In logic, the definitions of logical connectives and the rules of inference are stipulated and provided by a set of necessary and sufficient conditions. So they are finite definitions.

Maybe if you actually formulated intelligent questions I could try answering them? Asking "What is the logic of logic"? is not an intelligent question. It doesn't even make sense because it is redundant.

fatalism holds that human action is inefficacious

So form and structure have no content in themselves ?

I guess you mean that form and structure are the basis of content...

Logical entailment and material implication imply causal relations...

You conclude nothing with this, and only show poverty of spirit...

there is no relation between premisses without establishing the nature of each of the terms to get into the nature of their relation...

Logic is the science of necessary rules to valid meaning and reasoning...my personnel definition...do you have one which is yours ?

So Logic has no purpose and makes no sense ???

Oh let me tell you that I can straight away see how intelligent are your remarks !!!...

Rubbish. Leaving Damascus changes the world.

fatalism says that human action is inefficacious.

Of course it doesn't.

But, false or not, fatalism says that human action is inefficacious.

That's right, causal sufficiency only applies to determinism. Fatalism says no one thing is the ultimate (neither necessary nor sufficient) source of the effects that follow since every state of affairs is necessarily the way it is logically prior to any actual causes.

This is Logic 101.



something like that...but much more can be said about that.



No they don't. Explain what you mean. "If Obama is president of the USA, then the earth is round."--this is material implication and it has nothing to do with causation. "A and B" logically entails "A."--this is logical entailment and it has nothing nothing to do with causation, either.



The discussion is impoverished because you are not saying anything substantive or informative yourself. You might try learning a little logic before trying to discuss it.



What does that even mean? An argument is deductively valid only if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Validity has nothing to do with "the nature of the terms"--whatever that means.:rolleyes:



So does a toilet.... Wow, you've enlightened us all!



I already told you.



Wrong: this is the very first mistake people make without any formal training in logic. "Reality" can show a premise or conclusion is true or false. But nothing in the empirical world undermines logical validity, entailment, and logical consequence.



Yeah, that's what I said.:rolleyes: Your ego puts words into people's mouths at the cost of your sounding even more stupid. More word-filler!



That's exactly right. Having to condescend to an ignoramus makes my remarks sound unintelligent. I agree.

There are things we do, and there are things that happen to us. Catching a Frisbee is something we do. Falling down, on the other hand, isn't something we do; instead, falling down is something that happens to us.

However, all that above assumes that we have free will. If we instead assume as hard determinists assume, then we'll need to assume that we have no free will. If there is no free will, then everything that we think we do isn't something we do; rather, it's something that happens to us. In fact, in a world with no free will (not even a smidgen), there is no human that does anything.

If aliens came down and put us all in prison, our freedom to do as we please would no longer be the case, but not even that scenario takes away all free will; even prisoners are free to read their books, so though they can't go and come as they please, it's not that they have no free will; instead, their freedom to do as they please is severely limited.

ETA: A possible objection is that getting into a car against my will is something I do, but that is not an example of choicelessness.

Yes, I would have thought that what distinguishes fatalism from hard deteminism is that hard determinism implies causal efficacity of human action. Of course, the question, how the term "fatalism" should be used, is not so important as the question, about the doctrine (whatever it is called) that human action is inefficacious. However, that doctrine is generally called, "fatalism". Sometimes, "Mohammedan fatalism". Which engenders "the lazy argument".

Lazy argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia