ellauri042.html on line 657: An anecdote in "A Letter from Mr. Cibber, to Mr. Pope", published in 1742, recounts their trip to a brothel organised by Pope's own patron, who apparently intended to stage a cruel joke at the expense of the poet. Since Pope was only about 4' tall, with a hunchback, due to a childhood tubercular infection of the spine, and the prostitute specially chosen as Pope's 'treat' was the fattest and largest on the premises, the tone of the event is fairly self-apparent. Cibber describes his 'heroic' role in snatching Pope off of the prostitute's body, where he was precariously perched like a tom-tit, while Pope's patron looked on, sniggering, thereby saving English poetry. While Cibber's elevation to laureateship in 1730 had further inflamed Pope against him, there is little speculation involved in suggesting that Cibber's anecdote, with particular reference to Pope´s "little-tiny manhood", motivated the revision of hero.
ellauri055.html on line 215: Saint Fiacre is the patron saint of the commune of Saint-Fiacre, Seine-et-Marne, France. He is the patron of growers of vegetables and medicinal plants, and gardeners in general, including ploughboys. His reputed aversion to women is believed to be the reason he is also considered the patron of victims of venereal disease. He is further the patron of victims of hemorrhoids and fistulas, taxi cab drivers, box makers, florists, hosiers, pewterers, tilemakers, and those suffering from infertility. Finally, he is commonly invoked to heal persons suffering from various infirmities, premised on his reputed skill with medicinal plants.
ellauri089.html on line 126: Many of his stories, such as Gulf, If This Goes On—, and Stranger in a Strange Land, depend strongly on the premise, related to the well-known Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, that by using a correctly designed language, one can change or improve oneself mentally, or even realize untapped potential.
ellauri096.html on line 59: Predictive determinism states that everything is foreseeable. Metaphysical determinism states that there is only one way the future could be given the way the past is. Simon Laplace used metaphysical determinism as a premise for predictive determinism. He reasoned that since every event has a cause, a complete description of any stage of history combined with the laws of nature implies what happens at any other stage of the universe. Scriven was only challenging predictive determinism in his thought experiment. The next approach challenges metaphysical determinism.
ellauri096.html on line 112: Agnostics overestimate how easy it is to identify what cannot be known. To know, one need only find a single proof. To know that there is no way to know, one must prove the negative generalization that there is no proof. After all, inability to imagine a proof is commonly due to a failure of ingenuity rather than the non-existence of a proof. In addition to being a more general proposition, a proof of unknowability requires epistemological premises about what constitutes proof. Consequently, meta-proof (proof about proofs) is even more demanding than proof.
ellauri096.html on line 114: The agnostic might be tempted to avoid presumptuousness by converting to meta-agnosticism. But this “retreats” in the wrong direction. Meta-meta-proof is, in turn, even more demanding than meta-proof. Meta-meta-proof requires both the epistemological premises about what constitutes proof that meta-proof needs and, in addition, meta-meta-proof needs epistemological premises about what constitutes meta-proof.
ellauri096.html on line 142: If you know that your beliefs are jointly inconsistent, then you should reject R. M. Sainsbury’s definition of a paradox as “an apparently unacceptable conclusion derived by apparently acceptable reasoning from apparently acceptable premises” (1995, 1). Take the negation of any of your beliefs as a conclusion and your remaining beliefs as the premises. You should judge this jumble argument as valid, and as having premises that you accept, and yet as having a conclusion you reject (Sorensen 2003b, 104–110). If the conclusion of this argument counts as a paradox, then the negation of any of your beliefs counts as a paradox.
ellauri096.html on line 184: The skeptic could hope to solve (K-0) by denying that anything is known. This remedy does not cure (K). If nothing is known then (K) is true. Can the skeptic instead challenge the premise that proving a proposition is sufficient for knowing it? This solution would be particularly embarrassing to the skeptic. The skeptic presents himself as a stickler for proof. If it turns out that even proof will not sway him, he bears a damning resemblance to the dogmatist he so frequently chides.
ellauri096.html on line 199: Several commentators on the surprise test paradox object that interpreting surprise as unprovability changes the topic. Instead of posing the surprise test paradox, it poses a variation of the liar paradox. Other concepts can be blended with the liar. For instance, mixing in alethic notions generates the possible liar: Is ‘This statement is possibly false’ true? (Post 1970) (If it is false, then it is false that it is possibly false. What cannot possibly be false is necessarily true. But if it is necessarily true, then it cannot be possibly false.) Since the semantic concept of validity involves the notion of possibility, one can also derive validity liars such as Pseudo-Scotus’ paradox: ‘Squares are squares, therefore, this argument is invalid’ (Read 1979). Suppose Pseudo-Scotus’ argument is valid. Since the premise is necessarily true, the conclusion would be necessarily true. But the conclusion contradicts the supposition that argument is valid. Therefore, by reductio, the argument is necessarily invalid. Wait! The argument can be invalid only if it is possible for the premise to be true and the conclusion to be false. But we have already proved that the conclusion of ‘Squares are squares, therefore, this argument is invalid’ is necessarily true. There is no consistent judgment of the argument’s validity. A similar predicament follows from ‘The test is on Friday but this prediction cannot be soundly deduced from this announcement’.
ellauri096.html on line 233: Those who believe that the Church-Fitch result is a genuine paradox can respond to Williamson with paradoxes that accord with common sense (and science –and religious orthodoxy). For instance, common sense heartily agrees with the conclusion that something exists. But it is surprising that this can be proved without empirical premises. Since the quantifiers of standard logic (first order predicate logic with identity) have existential import, the logician can deduce that something exists from the principle that everything is identical to itself. Most philosophers balk at this simple proof because they feel that the existence of something cannot be proved by sheer logic. Likewise, many philosophers balk at the proof of unknowables because they feel that such a profound result cannot be obtained from such limited means.
ellauri096.html on line 257: Binkley illuminates this reasoning with doxastic logic. The inference rules for this logic of belief can be understood as idealizing the student into an ideal reasoner. In general terms, an ideal reasoner is someone who infers what he ought and refrains from inferring any more than he ought. Since there is no constraint on his premises, we may disagree with the ideal reasoner. But if we agree with the ideal reasoner’s premises, we appear bound to agree with his conclusion. Binkley specifies some requirements to give teeth to the student’s status as an ideal reasoner: the student is perfectly consistent, believes all the logical consequences of his beliefs, and does not forget. Binkley further assumes that the ideal reasoner is aware that he is an ideal reasoner. According to Binkley, this ensures that if the ideal reasoner believes p, then he believes that he will believe p thereafter.
ellauri097.html on line 149: Mencken repeatedly identified mathematics with metaphysics and theology. According to Mencken, mathematics is necessarily infected with metaphysics because of the tendency of many mathematical people to engage in metaphysical speculation. In a review of Alfred North Whitehead's The Aims of Education, Mencken remarked that, while he agreed with Whitehead's thesis and admired his writing style, "now and then he falls into mathematical jargon and pollutes his discourse with equations," and "[t]here are moments when he seems to be following some of his mathematical colleagues into the gaudy metaphysics which now entertains them."[50] For Mencken, theology is characterized by the fact that it uses correct reasoning from false premises. Mencken also uses the term "theology" more generally, to refer to the use of logic in science or any other field of knowledge. In a review for both Arthur Eddington's The Nature of the Physical World and Joseph Needham's Man a Machine, Mencken ridiculed the use of reasoning to establish any fact in science, because theologians happen to be masters of "logic" and yet are mental defectives:
ellauri097.html on line 151: Is there anything in the general thinking of theologians which makes their opinion on the point of any interest or value? What have they ever done in other fields to match the fact-finding of the biologists? I can find nothing in the record. Their processes of thought, taking one day with another, are so defective as to be preposterous. True enough, they are masters of logic, but they always start out from palpably false premises.
ellauri097.html on line 453: The is-ought fallacy, first articulated, by David Hume is put simply as you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.’ The more precise way of characterizing it is this; You cannot have a syllogism that has a moral term in the conclusion if there is no moral term in the premises. To be a valid argument, the conclusion has to follow from the premises. You can’t have anything in the conclusion that isn’t already set up in the premises. Hume identified this particular fallacy in arguments that were based on mere descriptive elements but had a conclusion with moral terms in it. That is the is-ought fallacy.
ellauri097.html on line 459: If they want to work on repairing the flaw in their argument, they’re welcome to try that. It would involve introducing a moral term that can be substantiated into the premise to arrive at a conclusion with a moral term. They might say, “If a thing is natural, then it’s moral. This is natural for me, therefore it’s moral.” Now, there’s a valid argument. I don’t think it’s sound, but at least it doesn’t commit the is-ought fallacy.
ellauri097.html on line 467: One way of arguing against homosexuality is to say that males were not intended to have sex with other males, and we can tell that by the way sexual organs appear to be intended to function. Because men were not intended to have sex with other males, and they do so, then they are violating their natural teleology, their natural function. But notice that in the nature of the argument we are making a moral claim implicitly up front. We’re saying, We ought to use things the way they were intended by their Maker to be used, consistent with their teleology. This isn’t that way, therefore it’s wrong. It’s not arguing merely on how bodies are naturally, but how they are intended to function naturally. The teleology is the moral term in the premises.
ellauri117.html on line 622: Locke stated his belief, in his Second Treatise, that nature on its own provides little of value to society, implying that the labour expended in the creation of goods gives them their value. From this premise, understood as a labour theory of value, Locke developed a labour theory of property, whereby ownership of property is created by the application of labour. In addition, he believed that property precedes government and government cannot "dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily." Fucking capitalist. Karl Marx later critiqued Locke's theory of property in his own social theory.
ellauri117.html on line 657: With regard to the Bible, Locke was very conservative. He retained the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. The miracles were proof of the divine nature of the biblical message. Locke was convinced that the entire content of the Bible was in agreement with human reason (The Reasonableness of Christianity, 1695). Although Locke was an advocate of tolerance, he urged the authorities not to tolerate atheism, because he thought the denial of God's existence would undermine the social order and lead to chaos. That excluded all atheistic varieties of philosophy and all attempts to deduce ethics and natural law from purely secular premises. In Locke's opinion the cosmological (i.e. primus motor) argument was valid and proved God's existence. His political thought was based on Protestant Christian views. Additionally, Locke advocated a sense of piety out of gratitude to God for giving reason to men. Locke compared the English monarchy's rule over the British people to Adam's rule over Eve in Genesis, which was appointed by God. And stands to human reason, don't it?
ellauri119.html on line 410: Churches quickly rejected the premises of radical theology, and many pastors and evangelists preached "our-God-is-not-dead" sermons for a decade or more, long after the movement itself had faded from public attention.
ellauri119.html on line 758: Alisa is right that an existential sentence is in principle easier to prove than its negative. Just produce a specimen. I bet she filched it from Karl Popper. The negation takes another universal premise to prove it from. But God is a harder nut. If God supporters could produce the specimen, they'd still need to prove uniqueness and the requisite universal properties. God opposers try to argue they do not need that hypothesis. Thing is the supporters clearly feel that need. It's not logic, it's a eusocial insect's builtin circuit. Less stupid egomaniacs are aware of its usefulness as a mind numbing anesthesiac, opium for the masses. Fiction or fact, its a great hypothesis. It would deserve inventing if it did not come pre-installed. Alisa was a silly hag.
ellauri133.html on line 441:
Rejecting the premises
ellauri153.html on line 868: Our knowing consciousness is divisible solely into subject and object. To be object for the subject and to be our representation or mental picture are one and the same. All our representations are objects for the subject, and all objects of the subject are our representations. These stand to one another in a regulated connection which in form is determinable a priori, and by virtue of this connection nothing existing by itself and independent, nothing single and detached, can become an object for us. The first aspect of this principle is that of becoming, where it appears as the law of causality and is applicable only to changes. Thus if the cause is given, the effect must of necessity follow. The second aspect deals with concepts or abstract representations, which are themselves drawn from representations of intuitive perception, and here the principle of sufficient reason states that, if certain premises are given, the conclusion must follow. The third aspect of the principle is concerned with being in space and time, and shows that the existence of one relation inevitably implies the other, thus that the equality of the angles of a triangle necessarily implies the equality of its sides and vice versa. Finally, the fourth aspect deals with actions, and the principle appears as the law of motivation, which states that a definite course of action inevitably ensues on a given character and motive.
ellauri159.html on line 1289: You are a conceptualizer who tends to explore a narrow topic deeply. Guys like you take a systems approach, rather than a linear one, during the planning stage. They do a website not just a text! You start a project early to test the concept, then quickly drive toward the conclusion. Once the competitors´ bones are in place, you further develop the content, adding facts to flesh out their ideas. You may find it useful during revision to challenge yourself to consider alternatives, rather than locking yourself in to your original premise. Oh, why bother, since you got it all figured out already.
ellauri180.html on line 254: What do you do if you discover another recently published book that has nearly the exact same premise as the one you've written?
ellauri183.html on line 78: His deep belief that one should live morally crashed into his premise that one should live fully. Yep, I bet he did shag his coeds. Janna Malamud Smith is the author of An Absorbing Errand: How Artisz and Crafzmen Make Their Way to Mastery; A Potent Spell: Mother Love and the Power of Fear; and Private Matters: In Defense of the Personal Life. Her titles have been New York Times Notable Boox and A Potent Spell was a Barnes and Noble "Discover Great New Writers" pick. She has written for the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Threepenny Review, among other publications. A practicing psychotherapist, she lives with her husband and two children in Massachusetz.
ellauri204.html on line 633: Lord of the Flies is a 1954 novel by Nobel Prize-winning English author William Golding. The book’s premise focuses on a group of British boys stranded on an uninhabited island and their attempt to govern themselves, with disastrous results. Golding wrote his book as a counterpoint to R.M. Ballantyne’s youth novel The Coral Island, and included specific references to it, such as the rescuing naval officer’s description of the children’s pursuit of Ralph as “a jolly good show, like the Coral Island”.
ellauri263.html on line 395: Small wonder, then, that all eyes are on finding the new Homeland Security, itself based on an Israeli TV series, Hatufim. And it’s not surprising that the quest is focused on Israel, which has spawned a string of international hits, starting with In Treatment, a 2008 HBO adaptation of the Hebrew-language Be Tipul. In 2016 Neflix started airing Mossad 101, about Israel’s intelligence service, while earlier this year Hulu nabbed False Flag, a conspiracy thriller loosely premised on the 2010 assassination of Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, widely thought to be the work of the Mossad, by a hit squad carrying foreign passports.
ellauri297.html on line 48: Founder, Ammi Ruhama Community Christian Union. Living History Interpretor. Baker. Milford Baby and Toddler Group Organizer. Bada Bing Pizza Chef. Sunnymead Residential Home Kitchen Assistant. Be Life Cafe and Marketplace Operations Personnel. Summit Christian Academy Steward. I vacuum the hallways, library, music room and preschool room. I clean the bathrooms and mop the gym/cafeteria floor. I also maintain the general premises. Dan the Handy Man. Do you need handy work done around your house, but don't want to have to call in the big guys with the big price? My name is Daniel Bacon and I am an experienced handy man living right here in Clarks Summit. If you need your lawn cut, bushes trimmed, garden weeded, fence painted / stained or just about any other job done, then call me at 570-585-9595 or email me at contactdanielbacon@gmail.com and we'll set up a time for me to come and see if I am the right man for the job. Wait! let me…Show more... (Ouch!) I emptied the front cash register as well as filling in as a sandwich maker. I created schedules and activities for the campers and staff to participate in. I also led worship during the evenings. Student janitor.
xxx/ellauri057.html on line 852: Much has changed since the publication of Markens grøde. The planet’s human population has almost quadrupled, from fewer than two billion in 1917 to more than seven billion now, and is estimated to reach ten to eleven billion before the end of this century.10 Simultaneously, human-made changes to the Earth’s ecosystems and climate have reached an unprecedented scale. While levels of consumption vary greatly from one country to another and between different social classes, there can be no doubt that globally, the use of both renewable and non-renewable resources has risen immensely during the last hundred years. This development began, of course, long before 1917, with the Industrial Revolution constituting an important premise. However, it was not until after the end of the Second World War that the human transformation of the planet began to advance with such enormous speed that the time since then is now often referred to as the Great Acceleration.
xxx/ellauri177.html on line 205: The 24th feature from Hong Sangsoo, doppelgänger of the talkative celeb guy in the last scene of the movie THE WOMAN WHO RAN follows Gamhee (Kim Minhee), a florist and the wife of a translator who never in 5 years time has left her for a moment from his sight. She has three separate encounters with friends while her husband finally is on a business trip. Youngsoon (Seo Youngwha) is divorced, turned lesbian (the couple likes to feed alley cats) and has given up meat and likes to garden in the backyard of her semi-detached house. Suyoung (Song Seonmi) is divorced, has a big savings account and a crush on her architect neighbor and is being hounded by a young poet she met at the bar. Woojin (Kim Saebyuk) works for a movie theater and hates it that her writer husband has become a celeb. Their meetings are polite, but not warm. Some of their shared history bubbles to the surface, but not much. With characteristic humor and grace, Hong takes a simple premise and spins a web of interconnecting philosophies and coincidences. THE WOMAN WHO RAN is a subtle, powerful look at dramas small and large faced by women everywhere. Basically, they are 40+ ladies who may have met at some art school and get a chance to compare notes on how well their childless lives have turned out. Gamhee used to be the celeb's girl friend until the movie theater attendant stole the guy. Now both of them are sorry that she did, but really not that much. The Éric Rohmer of South Korea.
xxx/ellauri215.html on line 390: "The fifth claim (sorry folks) is about the US and EU projecting power onto Russia. Remember that the EU has worked on two premises - Idealism and Realism. HOOHOO, this is getting too hilarious. Idealism because we wanted to create closer relations with Russia, otherwise we would not have created a level of energy dependency on Russia like we have and trying to accommodate Russia with cooperation in the EU; and, Russia has not been aggressive about EU expansion as such.
xxx/ellauri250.html on line 473: [Precipitates] events and resolutions as soon as the premise is exhausted. [Full review in Spanish]
xxx/ellauri261.html on line 317: COT. Which I know is not misplaced. (BOLT and MIZZLE bow.)—On no account leave the premises.
xxx/ellauri380.html on line 299: A lot of hate coming from you not just anger hate. In reality the Jews occupied that land thousands of years ago first. It was THEIR god who promised the Philistines' premises to them, so there!
34