This is a forum to discuss any and all aspects of philosophy. Existentialists, Rationalists, Phenomenologists, Buddhists, Taoists, Humeans, Kantians, Lockeans, Descartesians . . . all are welcome!

what about Lewisians?

we welcome as well?

c'mon, who else believes in an infinitude of (theistic) concrete worlds, existing alongside the (atheistic) actual world?

;)

Posted by Leviathan what about Lewisians? we welcome as well? c'mon, who else believes in an infinitude of (theistic) concrete worlds, existing alongside the (atheistic) actual world? ;)

Hmm sounds idealistic. Defend yourself!

I have joined your board and am poised to respond to threads.
My credentials are:

Philosophy
"The Philosophy of Mind"
"Consciousness"
"History of Philosophy: Kant and the Enlightenment"
"History of Philosophy: India"
"Contemporary Continental Philosophy"
"Introduction to Philosophy"
"Logic"

Relevant
"Comparitive Religions"
"Sociology"
"Racial and Ethnic Issues"

My personal readings specialize in contemporary philosophy, consciousness, philosophy of medicine, Foucault, Marx and a bit of Derrida.

I have a philosophy minor (previously double major) and worked as a research assistant for the philosophy department. I am considering pursuing a doctorates in philosophy.

So though my knowledge is definitely still very limited I hope that I can contribute a bit to the discussions.

Posted by Horus Hmm sounds idealistic. Defend yourself!

Easy. There are an infinite number of concrete possible worlds; these represent the domain over which our modals quantify. One of these worlds, the actual one (in which we exist), is the sole domain for quantification of actuality. Thus, when I say "I might have had a peanut butter and banana sandwich for breakfast this morning, but I didn't", I am expressing a true statement by virtue of the fact that the first clause connects with a possible world in which my counterpart did have such a sandwich for breakfast, and the second clause is true in virtue of the fact that I did not in fact have one in this world.

The actual world contains no gods (read Dawkins' "The God Delusion" if you have managed to convince yourself that there is some such entity existing alongside us) but it is certainly possible that there were gods - thus there are possible worlds that contain gods, and recombination means that the number of these worlds is infinite.

Therefore, there are an infinitude of (theistic) concrete worlds, existing alongside the (atheistic) actual world.

QED.

Posted by Leviathan Easy. There are an infinite number of concrete possible worlds; these represent the domain over which our modals quantify. One of these worlds, the actual one (in which we exist), is the sole domain for quantification of actuality. Thus, when I say "I might have had a peanut butter and banana sandwich for breakfast this morning, but I didn't", I am expressing a true statement by virtue of the fact that the first clause connects with a possible world in which my counterpart did have such a sandwich for breakfast, and the second clause is true in virtue of the fact that I did not in fact have one in this world. The actual world contains no gods (read Dawkins' "The God Delusion" if you have managed to convince yourself that there is some such entity existing alongside us) but it is certainly possible that there were gods - thus there are possible worlds that contain gods, and recombination means that the number of these worlds is infinite. Therefore, there are an infinitude of (theistic) concrete worlds, existing alongside the (atheistic) actual world. QED.

They aren't separate realities. The mere fact that you perceive them on some levels makes them part of this reality. Your mind just makes you think they're disconected. The only meaning or depth of life is what we give to it.

I guess you could call me an Absurdist. But I'm the total opposite of a Marxist (which most Existentialists/Absurdists were).

Maybe I'll write an essay about how wrong Marx was later.

Marxian exploitation is an exploitation of people who don't understand economics.

Sorry if the post is disjointed I'm still fucking high from this morning (13 hours WTF I swear that shit was laced).

what about Lewisians? we welcome as well? c'mon, who else believes in an infinitude of (theistic) concrete worlds, existing alongside the (atheistic) actual world?

Forgive my ignorance but what is a Lewisian? All I can find is information on rock formations and C.S. Lewis advocates.

If it is anything close to what you are saying it is, then it seems to be a misinterpretation of Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation of the break down of the wave equation found in the Schrondinger's Cat thought experiment (pant pant).

What justification do you have for the claim that any one of the infinite worlds is more real than the others? Why should this particular world be the one that disallows gods while the other ones all allowing for it? If this world is without a god wouldn't it be more likely that most of the others would be without gods also? (please no discussion of Dawkins or atheism since I am undoubtable on your side of the issue)

So in its basic form we have Schrondinger's cat thought experiment. It is concluded that one of three things happens 1) cat lives or dies immediately 2) cat lives or dies only once an observation has been made (assuming the cat doesn't constitute a conscious entity)(the Copenhagen Interpretation not truely given justice) or 3) that the cat both lives and dies and two realities form around each possibility (Everett'e Multi-World Interpretation in a very very bad nut shell).

Everett's Multi-World Interpretation would hold though that both unfolded into equally real realities of which one we are experiencing. Another "I" is experiencing each of the other ones however.

Now under this view each possibility would undoubtedly unfold. So if this universe could possibily be created by a God or gods then there is a universe which had that unfold.

I guess you could call me an Absurdist. But I'm the total opposite of a Marxist (which most Existentialists/Absurdists were).

Most absurdists? I am taking first you mean the "Theater of the Absurd" which is a literary genre rather than a true philosophy. Granted Camus is usually accepted as some sort of founder of this genre but Camus is typically seen as existentialist. The problem with identifying existentialists and absurdists as Marxist, is they quite simply are different.

I will grant that in some ways both have similarities to Marxism, but I don't find them close enough to identify them together.

Also though Marx was wrong on many things he also was correct on many accounts. His tenents of what a true socialist state would look like is actually quite similiar to what we have in America and especially in European "Socialist" nations. Marx wanted public lands, check. Public schools, check . . .

What Marx probably failed to take into account is the diversity and adaptive ability of capitalist states.

Posted by Cabiria Most absurdists? I am taking first you mean the "Theater of the Absurd" which is a literary genre rather than a true philosophy. Granted Camus is usually accepted as some sort of founder of this genre but Camus is typically seen as existentialist. The problem with identifying existentialists and absurdists as Marxist, is they quite simply are different. I will grant that in some ways both have similarities to Marxism, but I don't find them close enough to identify them together. Also though Marx was wrong on many things he also was correct on many accounts. His tenents of what a true socialist state would look like is actually quite similiar to what we have in America and especially in European "Socialist" nations. Marx wanted public lands, check. Public schools, check . . . What Marx probably failed to take into account is the diversity and adaptive ability of capitalist states.

No no, I mean that most Existentialists/Absurdists were also Marxist sympathizers (Sartre is a good example).

Marxism is wrong in every degree, though I would consider Marxism/Socialism/Communism an issue for the Politics board.

Posted by Cabiria Forgive my ignorance but what is a Lewisian? All I can find is information on rock formations and C.S. Lewis advocates.

Someone who regards this as the bible on pretty much everything related to metaphysics and the underlying substructure of quantification:

If it is anything close to what you are saying it is, then it seems to be a misinterpretation of Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation of the break down of the wave equation found in the Schrondinger's Cat thought experiment (pant pant).

Huh? There might be tie-ins with quantum mechanics, but Lewis's theory is a metaphysical, and not a scientific, inquiry. That is to say, every PW under the Lewis schemata is absolutely disjoint from every other PW; you can take a PW to mean "one universe within a pluriverse". On one interpretation, concrete possible worlds go a long way toward explaining Schroedinger's cat.

What justification do you have for the claim that any one of the infinite worlds is more real than the others? Why should this particular world be the one that disallows gods while the other ones all allowing for it? If this world is without a god wouldn't it be more likely that most of the others would be without gods also?

No world is more real per se, but only one world is "actual" in the sense that, from the starting point of any statement in a reasonable semantics, the speaker can only exist in one world. Thus, the world of the speech act is automatically the actual world qua the speaker; assume that this attaches a special operator ("@") to that particular world, and such determines the truth functional path for statements made without modal operators. Since we all inhabit just one world in the multiverse, from our point of view, this world is actual. It doesn't have any special status; it's only actual from our point of view (and only gives truth values FOR US on nonmodal statements) in virtue of our place within it.

As for gods, although there are non existing along side us (actually), it is certainly possible that there would have been gods, and the fact that this is possible means that there is some world where it is actual.

The mistake is to assume that the various possibilities (the cat living or dying, e.g.) create the worlds. they don't. Rather, every possibility has already been accounted for and is true at some possible world or other; reality doesn't "branch" through time as naive models suggest, but rather, exists parallel to an infinitude of unrealized possibilia.

Thank you for the explanation. Definitely an interesting idea. It seems very religious and faith based though. Can you please tell me why such a thing should be believed?

Marx and Engels write:

"Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc."

From my estimation in America number one has been done to a very limited extent. 2 has occured. For 3 there has been partial abolition of inheritance rights. 4 has occured in part. 5 has occured. 6 has occured. 7 has occured in the private sector. 8 has largely occured as industrial armies are basically our modern labor union. We also to a large extent, but not entirely, all have an obligation to work. 9 has partially occured. 10 has occured to a large extent.

So given that Marx proposed these ten tenants and has been shown to be quite correct to a large extent on most of them, how can you say Marx was entirely wrong.

Marxism is wrong in every degree, though I would consider Marxism/Socialism/Communism an issue for the Politics board.

You must truly be a proponent of analytic philosophy. The Continental philosophers would generally feel philosophy should be utilized in the real world and not just a topic for discussion between fuzzy headed intellectuals in private rooms. Philosophy can help influence politics, economics, morality, ethics, environmental debates and so forth. I said previously that I have an interest in the philosophy of medicine. I believe philosophy has something to contribute to discussion on all matters.
So what is wrong with discussing philosophical perspectives on social issues? Foucault wasn't writing about sexuality and the prison system just for the hell of it. Plato didn't write his "Republic" for it to collect dust and not be used.
When someone says "socialist" tenants are incorrect, a slew of philosophers deserve to be heard with their varied ideas.
With that said, yes I agree that many issues should be approached with care in a "philosophy" message board. I think the requirement should be a utilization of logic or some name dropping when discussing the issues.

Posted by Cabiria Marx and Engels write: "Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc." From my estimation in America number one has been done to a very limited extent. 2 has occured. For 3 there has been partial abolition of inheritance rights. 4 has occured in part. 5 has occured. 6 has occured. 7 has occured in the private sector. 8 has largely occured as industrial armies are basically our modern labor union. We also to a large extent, but not entirely, all have an obligation to work. 9 has partially occured. 10 has occured to a large extent. So given that Marx proposed these ten tenants and has been shown to be quite correct to a large extent on most of them, how can you say Marx was entirely wrong.

Well . . . with metaphysical or epistemological points of inquiry I'm pretty much "this is what I think but I accept what you think too" because it can be so individual. For example, maybe for you you can only see the world in terms of rationalism and refuse to trust your senses, while I personally believe even the purest sciences to be derived from empirical experience. But with political philosophy, philosophy concerned with the real world and how people should act, I have no issue believing one side is right and the other wrong.

I'm not saying Marx was wrong in his predictions, rather in his positions in general.

I believe private property to be the right, the right from which all other rights are derived. As Locke said (I'm not as good a writer as he is but I'll try to paraphrase), when man finds an object in nature and mixes his labor with it, it becomes his own, his property.

So (and here I am borrowing Rothbard's logical reasoning, found in Ethics of Liberty et al), there is this theory: that A owns whatever he works with. If A builds a house and starts farming the land, he owns all of the land on which he works. If you find a rock and chip it into a primitive hand-axe, it is your hand-axe. This is your property and you can do whatever you want with it so long as it doesn't interfere with anybody else's property rights. There are only two alternatives: Either B owns A's property (in whole or in part), which is slavery (this is what our government does through taxation), or everyone owns everybody's property. It is not A's hand-axe, rather it belongs to his whole tribe.

This Communist theory of ownership is neither practical nor natural. The human race would not get to where it was today if everybody owned everything. If there are a million people in the world, and you make a beautiful painting, you do not own it. Rather, you own one-millionth of it, along with everyone else in the world. And it can not be put to any fair use unless all partial-owners agree to it.

Of course this argument is purely academic, and in practice Communism is not the people owning everything, but the government owning everything. Even the Trotskyist version, Democratic Socialism, is still an ownership by the government of all property. Just because the people who compose this state are chosen by mob-rule doesn't make it any more fair than a Stalinist dictatorship.

As a radical libertarian, I support the antithesis to Marxism. Private Property is everything.

I don't want to re-write my defense of stateless private property anarchism . . . you can find it here: http://www.uer.ca/...urrpage=1&pp#post0

If you read through the thread (and 'tis fine if you don't, I understand it's a lot of stuff), at the end I was pinned on two issues: Environmentalism and Monopolies/Trusts. Here are my solutions to them:

Monopolies/Trusts were nearly all intimately tied to big government during the latter half of the 19th century when the Progressive movement caught speed. And even monopolies/trusts not tied to the government would have subsided to competition. Even if they maintain a vertical monopoly on all capital goods, technology would catch up with them and people would find a way around them. If the monopoly prices became too high, people would do without the good. And let us not forget that the largest monopolizing organization is the Government itself, which grants monopolies on Utilities and television/radio stations, and holds monopolies in defense, legal arbitration, schooling, road-building, etc. This is why it costs 10K on average to put a kid through shitty public schools, while 8K on average for private schools which are infinitely better. Competition lowers prices.

As for environmentalism, you must again turn to private property. At this time the rivers and oceans are considered 'public'. Of course it is ridiculous for everyone to own them, so they are in effect ownerless. If they were privatized, it would be reasonable to sue a factory for polluting your stream just as it would be now to sue someone for dumping poison on your lawn, and to force them to clean it up. This used to be the case in the US when we still maintained some semblance of Jeffersonianism (Lincoln ended all that), but it was made illegal to sue industry in such situations in the 1820s.

Even libertarians believe that a government in some form should exist. If I claim property A and another person steals a rock from my land to make the hand axe, I should have access to a legal recourse. It would not be proper for my only recourse to be strapping on the pistol and paying this person a visit. Thus the creation of the police force.

Next, there needs to some record of who owns what. Public records are established. Individuals are not equipped to deal with fire, fire stations pop up. Individuals can not be expected to insure port entry into other countries. We need at the very least a defensive military. To form all of this stuff taxes come in. The Laissez Faire political system is more of a failure that communism. In the end every economy becomes to some degree a mixed economy. I am definitely a believer that government needs to but out to a much greater extent. But I feel a government must be present.

Marxism is quite distinct from Communism. Communism was an utter failure and though Marxism probably would be also it has never truly been tried. What I am trying to get across though is that much of Marx's theories are incorporated into our society and societies across the globe. He helped instigate that change. Capitalism with proper government control helped get us to this point.

Marx was wrong on many points, but not completely and utterly wrong.

Posted by Cabiria Even libertarians believe that a government in some form should exist. If I claim property A and another person steals a rock from my land to make the hand axe, I should have access to a legal recourse. It would not be proper for my only recourse to be strapping on the pistol and paying this person a visit. Thus the creation of the police force. Next, there needs to some record of who owns what. Public records are established. Individuals are not equipped to deal with fire, fire stations pop up. Individuals can not be expected to insure port entry into other countries. We need at the very least a defensive military. To form all of this stuff taxes come in. The Laissez Faire political system is more of a failure that communism. In the end every economy becomes to some degree a mixed economy. I am definitely a believer that government needs to but out to a much greater extent. But I feel a government must be present. Marxism is quite distinct from Communism. Communism was an utter failure and though Marxism probably would be also it has never truly been tried. What I am trying to get across though is that much of Marx's theories are incorporated into our society and societies across the globe. He helped instigate that change. Capitalism with proper government control helped get us to this point. Marx was wrong on many points, but not completely and utterly wrong.

The libertarian party may support a government in some form but I don't. I think that policing can and will be provided by defense-insurance companies, and for far cheaper and better quality than when provided by the government. Legal recource and arbitration, particularly in civil cases, would operate much like the mercantile courts of champagne. Free competiting judges. There was no police-force, even, to enforce the judge's mandates: if a person didn't do what he was ordered, he was ostracized be all other merchants (or was charged horrible prices the rest of his career).

I know this sounds very odd, but we have multiple countries now with everyone living under different legal systems, sometimes radically different, yet people of different countries can trade and interact just fine. Libertarian anarchism is simply taking this to an extreme, and making everybody a ruler of his own person, allowed to choose the legal method he wants to defend himself.

Posted by Cabiria Thank you for the explanation. Definitely an interesting idea. It seems very religious and faith based though. Can you please tell me why such a thing should be believed?

Haha, you'd have to actually read the book and the literature which follows it for a complete argument, since I wouldn't want to retype the 100 pages or so which explain why the theory should be accepted. But in basic:

- It's supported by modern science. Lewisian frameworks, for example, jive remarkably well with both quantum mechanics and string theory. Lewis's four-dimensionalist framework in regards to time jives remarkably well with Minkowski spacetime.

- If the theory is true, it ties together just about all of metaphysics, physics, and linguistics into a tidy little package; thus, it creates a clean and elegant cutting point for Occam's razor.

- It's the only way to freely quantify across possible worlds; no abstract possible worlds model comes close to providing the analytic power of Lewis's semantics, although Ted Sider's ersatz pluriverse model makes a good attempt.

- If it turns out to be false, then a number of possile speech acts suddenly take on VERY dubious satisfaction conditions. You can build all sorts of robust Ship of Theseus cases across modals, and all sorts of bizarre personal identity claims which come out very intuitively correct under the Lewis framework, and very unnervingly incorrect under all rival theories (cf Plantinga, Kripke, Stalnaker)

Basically, there is a "leap of faith" to the extent that the truth of the theory is completely unmeasurable at the present moment. It's the same sort of "leap of faith" required to support superstring theory - it's not something we can get a "yea" or "nay" on with present methods of inquiry, but there is evidence in its favour.

That said, I don't know anyone who actually believe in Lewis's theory 100%. Those who, like me, argue for it, do so for its utility, compactness, and elegance. But were evidence against it to come along, I tend to think we'd all drop it in a heartbeat - and therein lies the difference with religion

Yay, this discussion board is awesome. Let's start new threads!

Existentialist here

Literary and Social theory, Feminist thought, and soon to be 20th Century French Thought are my current interests. I have in the past dabbled in the Stoics and Enlightenment eras.