HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jtan@vx9000.weber.edu (THE TAN MAN)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: re: Descartes
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:06:00 GMT
Reply-To: JTAN@cc.weber.edu
Organization: Weber State University CS Department
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Hi!!  I love philosophy, but I am brand spanking new to this particular
group.

But, I figured I'd jump in feet first with this response regarding
Descartes' proof of the existence of God:

In article <1992Oct15.014644.2396@scott.skidmore.edu>, gschlesi@scott.skidmore.edu (gabriel schlesinger) writes...
>It's interesting because I was having the same problem with this point
>just last week.  I find the contradiction to be in the fact that when
>he talks about existance beforehand, he can only prove that his "mind"
>exists (I don't need to go into that do I?) but then he says God
>exists because he can imagine the existance of god.  Therefore
>everything exists because don't we all imagine things.  (people who
>aren't there at the time, dreams, dogs etc. etc.) so shouldn't all
>those things be true.  But obviously they're not, and Descartes would
>agree since he said that we can't be sure of anything except our own
>existance.

As I read it, here is what I got from the proof of God:

Well, first, of course, Descartes beautifully proves his own
existence (the Cogito).  Then, building on this, he attempts to
establish the existence of his mind.  After that, he provides
the example of the wax that, despite physical changes when put
near a flame, remains essentially "there" (substance).  Then
he goes on to say that there must be as much formal reality
("real" reality) in something as there is in its objective
reality (in his context, meaning an idea).

Just as a quick sidenote example:  an unicorn is an objective
reality (an idea), therefore there must be formal reality
(real existence) in that idea.  But we all know that unicorns
have no formal reality (or, if it does, no one seems to have
found one).  So is Descartes wrong?  No, because the idea of
the unicorn is composed of the idea of a horse (which _does_
have formal reality) and the idea of a horn (which also has
formal reality), therefore, it indeed does have as much formal
reality in it as objective reality.

Now, let's look at infinity.  Where's the formal reality in
infinity?  Descartes believes it certainly could not have come
from him since he has only a finite mind, therefore there must
existence something "out there" that gave him the idea of
infinity, and he names this something "God".



That's the most I got out of it!  Hope that helps.

Johnn Tan
JTAN@cc.weber.edu
From: sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: God and Omnipotence
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:35:19 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

ken bell writes:
> 
> Omniscience. Now here there are serious problems. How can God know what
> I express by "I am feeling a sharp pain in my arm"? Certainly there is
> an irreducible pleasure-pain modality involved in my knowing my own pains, 
> but how could God have this knowledge, since, at least on most views, he
> has no croporeal embodiment, no physical or quasi-physical organism 
> and therefore no sensory modality?  Also, there are familiar problems about 
> God's knowledge of the future which I think cannot be resolved and which do 
> require some modification of traditional doctrines about God's knowledge.
> I am prepared to argue that with anyone who cares to.
> 
What is the problem here?  If God created you, then he created your feelings. 
Thus he knows what you are feeling because he himself determined what those
feelings would be.

> All-good?  Here we confront more familiar problems, when we consider God's
> relationship to the nature world he allegedly has created. Isn't God an
> accomplice before the facts to all evil and suffering, whether natural
> or moral, since in the act of creation all future states were omnisciently
> previsioned?  It is no good saying, as Plantinga and other possible-world 
> semanticists do, that God's not being able to co-instantiate the properties 
> "Capable of significant moral choice [freedom]" and "Never choosing badly" 
> does no damage to his omnipotence on the grounds that these properties 
> aren't logically compossible.  Mackey is surely right in upholding that if
> "S chooses rightly sometimes" is logically possible, so is "S chooses 
> rightly always."  So, if God is good, much less all good, why then did he 
> not actualize a world containing agents who both have the capability for 
> significant moral choice *and* always choosing rightly?  There is no 
> logical impossibility there.  God's goodness may, it appears, therefore 
> be reasonably impugned on that account.
> 
> Also it is highly questionable whether an entity could be omnigood, if
> this entails that the property of goodness is something which could be
> possessed to an infinite or maximal degree.  I am inclined to think
> that goodness does not admit of infinite degrees, but I'm not prepared to
> argue for that.

But surely, if God has determined that we cannot choose badly the he has
restricted our choice.  And by doing so he has restricted our ability to atain
freedom.  Another logical dilemma.


Stephen..
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson)
Subject: Re: re: GOOD and EVIL
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 00:45:30 GMT

     In article <1992Oct13.222618.12208@raven.alaska.edu>
fxlof@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu writes:

=In article <1992Oct13.145310.1581@beaver.cs.washington.edu>  
=simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson) writes:
=>  Actually Christianity probably pro-
=> vides a lot of interesting material for a discussion about who God might
=> be and what She/He might be like, but you can't seriously include  
=original sin (as presented above) as part of that material.
...
=Why not.  In the Catholic faith, original sin is part of every person's  
=birth.  Up until they are baptised they have original sin to account for.   
=Admitedly there are contradictions and I am probably presented a skewed  
=interpretation (thank you's to Sister Joyce :-)), but if you want to know  
=what someone, even God, is like, won't their actions reveal much more than  
=anything else.  ...  So if we accept that one of God's actions is to hold  
=us to original sin immediately upon birth, don't you start to draw  
=conclusions about who or what kind of {person, being, personality} God is.   
=Kind of vindictive wouldn't you say.  
=	"Your forefathers ate my apple, so I am holding you to paying for  
=the forest that I had to burn down because I don't like people eating my  
=apples!"

     If the moral of the story of the Garden of Eden is that because of
what our "forefathers" did, this vindictive being is going to hold us "to
paying for the forest," then what exactly is the difference between that
being and the one that provided the temptation to eat the apple?

                                     ---Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner)
Subject: Re: God and Omnipotence
Organization: M.Sc, C.S, Queen's, Kingston, Canada.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:15:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.145235.3208@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
>
>The best definition of the God of Abraham that I've ever seen is Anselm's:
>"God is a being than which none greater can be conceived". (Note that the
>definition does _not_ ride on what you or I or anyone else _can_ imagine;
>it is a logical sense of "conceiving" that Anselm invokes.)
>

I remember that one.  I thought it was a neat trick when i first saw
Anselm's proof.  However ...

Why should God obey logic?  Proving he exists or doesn't exist, using
logic to say that he has or lacks some quality, all these things rely
on human logic.  If God is all powerful, why should we be more
powerful than him by constraining him to what we puny humans can
conceive of?

God is whatever the hell he wants to be.  We're just little mortals
with pretensions of divinity.

Alejo (hausner@qucis.queensu.ca)


Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: hdeshma@eos.ncsu.edu (HARSHAVARDHAN  DESHMANE)
Subject: Re: Descartes
Followup-To: talk.philospohy.misc
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 09:02:05 GMT

In article <15OCT199215062450@vx9000.weber.edu> JTAN@cc.weber.edu writes:
>Hi!!  I love philosophy, but I am brand spanking new to this particular
>group.
>
>But, I figured I'd jump in feet first with this response regarding
>Descartes' proof of the existence of God:
>
>In article <1992Oct15.014644.2396@scott.skidmore.edu>, gschlesi@scott.skidmore.edu (gabriel schlesinger) writes...
>>It's interesting because I was having the same problem with this point
>>just last week.  I find the contradiction to be in the fact that when
>>he talks about existance beforehand, he can only prove that his "mind"
>>exists (I don't need to go into that do I?) but then he says God
>>exists because he can imagine the existance of god.  Therefore
>>everything exists because don't we all imagine things.  (people who
>>aren't there at the time, dreams, dogs etc. etc.) so shouldn't all
>>those things be true.  But obviously they're not, and Descartes would
>>agree since he said that we can't be sure of anything except our own
>>existance.
>
>As I read it, here is what I got from the proof of God:
>
>Well, first, of course, Descartes beautifully proves his own
>existence (the Cogito).  Then, building on this, he attempts to
>establish the existence of his mind.  After that, he provides
>the example of the wax that, despite physical changes when put
>near a flame, remains essentially "there" (substance).  Then
>he goes on to say that there must be as much formal reality
>("real" reality) in something as there is in its objective
>reality (in his context, meaning an idea).
>
>Just as a quick sidenote example:  an unicorn is an objective
>reality (an idea), therefore there must be formal reality
>(real existence) in that idea.  But we all know that unicorns
>have no formal reality (or, if it does, no one seems to have
>found one).  So is Descartes wrong?  No, because the idea of
>the unicorn is composed of the idea of a horse (which _does_
>have formal reality) and the idea of a horn (which also has
>formal reality), therefore, it indeed does have as much formal
>reality in it as objective reality.
>
>Now, let's look at infinity.  Where's the formal reality in
>infinity?  Descartes believes it certainly could not have come
>from him since he has only a finite mind, therefore there must

I have my doubts about the logic explained here, but before I start
talking too much, would you explain what you mean by "finite mind"?


>existence something "out there" that gave him the idea of
>infinity, and he names this something "God".
>
>
>
>That's the most I got out of it!  Hope that helps.
>
>Johnn Tan
>JTAN@cc.weber.edu


-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
Harshavardhan Deshmane, ECE Dept.                   hdeshma@croc.ece.ncsu.edu
North Carolina State University.                    hdeshma@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: Re: Fear of the process of dying.
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:41:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.194232.16394@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>Any theory of death must take into account
>the period prior to the beginning of life.  We don't have any memory of pre-
>existence because we didn't exist (this is why I doubt that I will live on
>after death).

  In what sense do you mean "exist?"  If you mean existence definined
by the World, then you would want to turn to Tibetian Buddhism for
contrary opinions.  If you mean existence in a sense that is
World indepedendent, then you might look to Plato for contrary opinions.
Both, of course, maintain that there exists a memory of pre-birth
existence.

>
>So in one sense, the eternal cycle found in Eastern philosophies is a
>meaningful analogy.

Perhaps some Eastern philosophies, those that deal with your question,
are more than just meaningful analogies.

>There is no soul, or such, that exists after
>our body "dies."  On the contrary, we live on past death only in our deeds
>and in the thoughts of others.

  This is quite a poetic understanding of death.  See in particular
W. B. Yeats' "Sailing to Byzantium."

>
>Should one fear death?  I don't think so.  It is a humbling experience to
>know your own mortality, that at some future time you will cease to exist. 
>But I think that this shouldn't and doesn't render life meaningless.

  It would seem to me that immortaility would render life meaningless.

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                    (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School

"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose,
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."

                                                 -- Carl G. Jung             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Allan Bloom Died
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:21:38 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Oct10.200711.329@news.wesleyan.edu> 
RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg) writes:

>In <1992Oct10.081205.16227@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu writes:
>^^^^^^
>******

>>In article <1992Oct10.022506.5128@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

CO:
>>>For those of you who do not know, Allan Bloom died yesterday.      
>>>His death is a terrible loss to this university, the University
>>>of Chicago, and to the field of political philosophy as a whole.

MZ:
>>It escapes me altogether just in what sense Bloom's death can be said
>>to affect the field of political philosophy, as distinguished from
>>polemical journalism.  No Leo Strauss, he.

RG:
>Have you no decency, you ubiquitous moron?  You don't write a critical
>rejoinder in response to someone's obituary, no matter who they are, and no
>matter who you are.

Of course I have no such thing, sporadic shrew.  But your deployment of
third-person pronouns intrigues me; so let us observe your own response.

In article <1992Oct10.033209.327@news.wesleyan.edu> 
RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg) writes:

RG:
>Sympathy & regrets to his family, friends, students, colleagues & others in his
>life.
>
>His Plato translations were important; however he is probably best-known for
>his less scholarly, "The Closing of the American Mind."  His later work
>popularized the views of Leo Strauss, who would have been aghast at the idea of
>his own views being *popularized*.

Notwithstanding your vulgar abuse of the term `sympathy', which certainly
does not denote something you can give, I note with some gleeful
gratification that the sentiment expressed in your own article is but a
hypocritical counterpart of my own befuddled musings.

>------------------------
>Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
>Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: The Pipistol still running short of 
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:18:28 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

  
Mikhail Zeleny, the Pipistol, the Charity Funder for Religious-Porno  
still running short of words:->  
  
> MZ:  
> >>>>It is to be hoped that Mr Rushdie, as well as some of his numerous Weste
> >>>>defenders, in this forum and elsewhere, will see fit to contribute towar
> >>>>the elimination of the continued threat against his life, which also    
> >>>>constitutes a menace for the cardinal principle of Western culture, the 
> >>>>idea of freedom of expression.  I sincerely hope that all participants i
> >>>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    
>   
> HK:   
> >>>Hey Mikhail!    
> >>>you should very well know by now that the idea of "freedom of expression"
> >>>is just another idea out of basketfull of ideas for us unless you reveal 
> >>>more about the machinary behind it. We need MORE REVELATIONS from YOUR BO
> >>>of BOOKS Man! BRING YOUR BOOK ! so that we can compare it word to word,  
> >>>and see how far you can endure exercising your "freedom of expression"...
> >>>Yes Mikhail, I am challenging you :->Don't forget to bring by the    
> >>>revelations of Rushdie with you.    
>   
> MZ:  
> >>Well, send me your seconds then.  Pistols at 75 meters is my choice.  
>   
> HK:  
> >Hey Mikhail, how can you silence words by pistols Man !   
>   
> My intent is not to silence words, but to put an end to blithering.  I  
> am sure that you can appreciate the difference.  Likewise, I am sure  
> that you know that the choice of arms belongs to the defending party.  
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
choice of arms ?!  
defending party ?!  
just demonstrate us how are you going to defend your :->  
   
;->->>the cardinal principle of Western culture,   
;->->>the idea of freedom of expression.    
  
by your :-> choice of arms :-> pipistol 8==*  
  
> HK:  
> >ya pipi, ya pistol ha ?  
   
> Just make sure you don't put the wrong tool in the right place, old chap.  
  
on the net our tools are words, your pipistols flop short to reach us ..  
even if they are  
  
> 75 meters  
  
in your choice...  
  
BRING YOUR BOOK! MAN!  
if you are the real defending party of your  
   
;->->>the cardinal principle of Western culture,   
;->->>the idea of freedom of expression.    
  
before others kick yours out to take it over....be quick !  
don't 8==* around !
From: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: re: GOOD and EVIL
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:45:56 GMT
Reply-To: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway

The difference between the two is of course that the Temptator
is the good guy in the plot. After all, he with his "non serviam"
is the one who opened our eyes to good and evil, so that we did
not have to slumber in the illusions given us by the Heavenly
Despot.

Solan
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: fxlof@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Liam O Forbes)
Subject: Re: GOOD and EVIL
Reply-To: fxlof@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:39:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.205444.19931@yang.earlham.edu>  
dsimkins@yang.earlham.edu writes:
> 
> Which groups?  I think that this is a Christian Scientist belief.  It is 
> certainly a Scientologist belief to some extent -- probably with  
different 
> language (not to imply that the two are related).
> 
> In any case, if this is heaven and we are god, we are in quite a bit of 
> trouble  I can tolerate the Nietzschian/Existentialist assertion that we 
> are god, but how does this world fit well into any definition of heaven?  
> Perhaps a Hegellian could argue that this world contains the potential  
to 
> be heaven, but I imagine even that would be difficult to defend.
> 
> David Simkins
> dimkins@earlham.edu

	I don't know which groups actually.  I suppose I could look  
around.  But I am not good at holding myself to that kind of elective  
research.  Sorry.  That's probably why I said "various groups."  I might  
have been better to say "I have seen in various places the theory that..."
	However, it seems to me that this world contatins all of the  
ingredients for a good definition of the "afterlife."  Devils and angels,  
dreams come true and terrible punishments are wrought.  Okay, so it's not  
an ideal.  Nobody promised rose gardens.  But what is it that's offered in  
the ideal definitions that makes them so much MORE than what is happening  
in this world?  
	By no means do I believe that death in this world is the end of  
?everything, life, existance?, but if you spend your entire time in this  
world wishing for an afterlife, you might as well speed your trip into the  
afterlife.  But if you spend time enjoying, healing, making better etc.  
your time in this world, isn't that a better example of heaven and God  
than sitting at home praying for entrance into the fluffy clouds of a  
Christian heaven?  Food for thought anyway.  -Liam
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: fburdette@worldbank.org (Franklin P. Burdette)
Subject: Good Luck
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc
Organization: The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:49:31 GMT

To Saint Jude:

With Love All Things Are Possible

	This paper has been sent to you for good luck. The original in is New
England. It has been sent around the world nine times! The luck has now
been sent to you. You will receive good luck within four days of receiving
this letter provided you, in turn send it on.

	This is no joke. You will receive good luck in the mail. Send no money.
Send copies to people you think need some good luck. Do not send money as
fate has no price. Do not keep this letter. It must leave your hands within
96 hours.

	Joe Elliot received $40,000\endash and lost it because he broke the chain.
Gene Welch lost his wife 51 days after receiving the letter. He had failed
to circulate the letter. However, before her death, he received $775,000.

	Please send twenty copies and see what happens in four days. The chain
comes from Venezuela and was written by Saul de Group, a missionary from
South Africa. Since the copy must tour the world, you must make twenty
copies and send them to friends and associates. After a few days, you will
get a surprise. This is true. Even if you are not superstitious.

	Do note the following: Constantine Dias received the chain letter. He
asked his secretary to make twenty copies and send them out. A few days
later he won a lottery of two million dollars. Carlos Dadirr, an office
employee, received the letter and forgot it had to leave his hands within
96 hours. He lost his job. Later, after finding the letter again, he mailed
the twenty copies. A few days later, he got a better job. Dalan Fairchild
received the letter and, not believing, threw the letter away. Nine days
later he died.

	In 1987 the letter, received by a young woman in California, was very
faded and barely readable. She promised herself she would retype the letter
and send it on, but she put it aside to do later. She was plagued by
various problems including expensive car repairs. The letter did not leave
her hands in 96 hours. She finally retyped the letter as promised and got a
new car!