This site is supported by Nobility Studios.

Big Blooming Blighter

Members
  • Content count

    2,133
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

78 Excellent

About Big Blooming Blighter

  • Rank
    Galilean
  • Birthday 03/08/1985

Profile Information

  • Gender: Male
  • Location: UK
  • Real name: Rob
  • Interests: Judo
    Philosophy
    Cooking
    Food Science
  • About me: Insert witty, faux-philosophical description of self here.

Recent Profile Visitors


29,265 profile views

Big Blooming Blighter's Activity

  1. Big Blooming Blighter added a post in a topic Sensoryism: A New Philosophy   

    Brilliant, though, being in a small town where everyone kips in the afternoon, it can get a bit dull during the day.
    • 0
  2. Big Blooming Blighter added a post in a topic Sensoryism: A New Philosophy   


    Interesting how the word "bollocks" changes over time.

    Of course, in my day, "bollocks" was bollocks and "interesting" meant something completely different.
    • 0
  3. Big Blooming Blighter added a post in a topic Troll Post On Racism   

    If we deny morality, racism isn't immoral?
    • 0
  4. Big Blooming Blighter added a post in a topic Good luck, Blighter!   

    I doubt it. These centres tend to restrict internet to education sites or a school intranet, and none of them permit using the internet for personal, non-educational/work-related use.
    • 0
  5. Big Blooming Blighter added a post in a topic Good luck, Blighter!   

    Should have seen these replies coming
    • 0
  6. Big Blooming Blighter added a post in a topic Two interesting pieces in Sunday NY Times   

    Read them both, more of the same old "Theists prove God!" "Oh no they haven't!" "Atheists prove no God" "Oh no they haven't" crap that cements my agnosticism

    Still, in fairness, the articles are reactionary, and do a good job laying down the facts.
    • 0
  7. Big Blooming Blighter added a post in a topic I know one thing which is absolutely true, can you think of anything else?   

    Descartes came up with it first, only he acknowledged that it could only be proven to be true (objectively and reflexively) to him.

    Cogito, ergo sum.

    And you're now trying to rip it off and throwing your condescension my way because I mentioned his name.

    You don't get to boast of your aspirations to step onto the moon after shooting down any mention of Buzz Aldrin and you don't get to rip off Descartes without being caught out on this board!

    Go away, you soil-dwelling amoeba!
    • 0
  8. Big Blooming Blighter added a post in a topic I know one thing which is absolutely true, can you think of anything else?   



    Strawman, rather than recycle.

    If Descartes had tried to apply his Cogito principle objectively, he would have ended up saying 'I doubt I exist, but to doubt is to think, and to think one must be, so anyone who doubts my existence must accept that I exist, for they cannot doubt my existence without thinking of my existence'

    I'm sure Inzababa would say something much more convoluted.
    • 0
  9. Big Blooming Blighter added a post in a topic Modal logic and free will. Keith, Bob, Swartz, Dave, Tim: a bunch of guys.   

    Has it not occurred to you why you keep getting banned, cretin?
    • 0
  10. Big Blooming Blighter added a post in a topic Modal logic and free will. Keith, Bob, Swartz, Dave, Tim: a bunch of guys.   

    Are we trying to further a conversation with someone who can't even start with reflexivity and self-evident statements?

    Epictetus, amongst many, many others would not have bothered to address this pompous, obtuse fool and I put it to the rest of you that we take a leaf from his book.
    • 0
  11. Big Blooming Blighter added a post in a topic Modal logic and free will. Keith, Bob, Swartz, Dave, Tim: a bunch of guys.   

    He knows logic!


    NO!

    NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

    FUCKING NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
    • 0
  12. Big Blooming Blighter added a post in a topic Modal logic and free will. Keith, Bob, Swartz, Dave, Tim: a bunch of guys.   

    Of course there are, because there are different scopes.

    In this, the actual world, it is not possible that JFK is the President of the US. This is a fact based on historical and political states of affairs.

    In some other possible world, JFK was not assassinated, was extraordinarily fortunate, and still reigns to this day.

    I like to distinguish these types of possibilia as 'localised possibilia' (things that are or are not possible given the way things are in the actual world) and 'modal possibilia' (things that are true in one or more possible worlds).

    The actual world (unless you're an extreme modal realist) is this world. All other worlds are non-actual, yet possible.

    If you are an extreme modal realist, then all worlds are actual, and we distinguish this world by simply saying 'this world'.

    Then we can get into schemas, and worlds where certain maximal sets of propositions hold true, but that's irrelevant. The whole notion of 'different kinds of possible' is irrelevant, of course, because the fact that a bachelor is unmarried (and the other axioms we threw your way) is necessarily true under all scopes of standards of possibility.

    A possible world, just to clear this up, is a maximal set of logically consistent propositions.
    • 1
  13. Big Blooming Blighter added a post in a topic Modal logic and free will. Keith, Bob, Swartz, Dave, Tim: a bunch of guys.   

    Oh, but I was SOOOOOOOO ready to pull out some truth tables(!)
    • 0
  14. Big Blooming Blighter added a post in a topic Modal logic and free will. Keith, Bob, Swartz, Dave, Tim: a bunch of guys.   

    There comes a point where 'questioning assumptions' becomes akin to being utterly obtuse.
    • 0
  15. Big Blooming Blighter added a post in a topic Modal logic and free will. Keith, Bob, Swartz, Dave, Tim: a bunch of guys.   

    It's not so much an assumption as a reasoned inference.

    Ax is a universal quantifier. It was created specifically for that purpose. To state 'Ax denotes that for all x or for any given x' is no more an assumption than to state 'The letter B is the letter B' or 'The colour red is not blue'.

    But no, I'm tired of this, we'll ask the bloody questions.

    Give us an axiom, or an argument, in predicate format, using modal logic if you wish, that demonstrates your grasp of logic. Use predicate format and the English vernacular to facilitate your demonstration.
    • 0