This guy took a fat shit on Russell and single handedly made rationalist metaphysics possible in philosophy again...

(1) "x" is identical to "x"
(2) If, for all instances of "y", "y" is not identical to "x", then "x" is not identical to "x", which is a contradiction.
(3) If "x" is identical to "x" (1), then it is not true that for all instances of "y" is "y" not identical to "x" (the converse of (2)).
(4) If "x" is identical to "x", then there exists some such "y" where "y" is identical to "x" (which follows from (3).
(5) There exists some such "y" where "y" is identical to "x" (logically deducible from (1) and (4)).
(6) There necessarily exists some such "y" where "y" is identical to "x"
(7) For all instances of "x", there necessarily exists some such "y" where "y" is identical to "x".

(1) is obviously, intuitively, and necessarily true for logic to work. (2) is assumed to be true. (6) is assumed to follow from (5), but no proof of this is presented.

is wrong. This is not predicate logic, but modal logic.

As an example of this logic in English.

(1) Saul Kripke is Saul Kripke.
(2) If, out of all geniuses, none of those geniuses is Saul Kripke, then Saul Kripke is not Saul Kripke.
(3) If Saul Kripke is Saul Kripke, then it is not true that, out of all geniuses, none of those geniuses is Saul Kripke.
(4) If Saul Kripke is Saul Kripke, then there is at least one genius who is Saul Kripke.
(5) There is at least one genius who is Saul Kripke.
(6) In all possible worlds, there is necessarily at least one genius who is Saul Kripke.
(7) For every case of Saul Kripke, there necessarily exists, in all possible worlds, some genius who is Saul Kripke.

The poster got this off /r/badphilosophy.

(2) If, out of all geniuses, none of those geniuses is Saul Kripke, then Saul Kripke is not Saul Kripke.
You lost me here

Self-correction, the example is an example of predicate logic.
was correct.

I don't know why the above poster is using the term "geniuses" instead of "people". It will perhaps be more clear if we use the later, so that we have "If out of everyone, no one is Saul Kripke, then Saul Kripke is not Saul Kripke".

Basically if nobody who exists is Saul Kripke, then Saul Kripke does not exist. In other words, if Saul Kripke existed, then their would be some individual satisfying the crierion that that individual is Saul Kripke - in which case there would have to be somebody who is Saul Kripke. Hence we can say that "if for every person, that person is not Saul Kripke, then Saul Kripke is not Saul Kripke."

In short, if nobody exists who is Saul Kripke, the Saul Kripke does not exist

this logic stuff is stupid..its just a bunch of symbols with no meaning

No they do have meaning, you fucking retard. Philosophers tend to abuse it and misuse it, but contemporary mathematics wouldn't even be the field it is today without formal logic. Topoi, lambda calculus, type theory, and most recently, Homotopy Type Theory, wouldn't even exist without formal logic. Similarly, shit like montague semantics wouldn't exist in the field of linguistics.

Kripke didn't misused it

he revolutionized logic

EVERYTHING IS EVERYTHING

I didn't say he did. I'm well aware of Kripke's contributions to logic (and his lesser-known contributions to set theory). I was saying that he's retarded if he thinks that formal logic (modal or otherwise) is "meaningless" and or trivial. Of course, applying it to natural language and simple syllogistic arguments might make it appear useless, "meaningless", or even trivial. However, when you understand the significance of formal logic within the context of modern mathematics (especially model theory, proof theory, and recursion theory) it becomes obvious why it's so important.

>i don't understand something
>therefore it has no meaning

t. brainlets

well why do many continentals shit on analytic philosophy then?

They're different branches within the western tradition, and therefore certain concepts, subfields, notions, customs, and practices within one branch will always be looked down upon by the other.

Analytics will criticise the tendency of continental writers like Derrida, Heidegger, and Lacan to be (often intentionally) obfuscating and verbose. Continentals will attack the analytics' often reductive understanding of language, or the occasional abuses of formal logic. Analytics will see continentals' greater trends toward vague ideas not often explored in analytic philosophy, and continentals will argue that analytic philosophy is too precise to really mean anything substantial.

The reason for animosity across both traditions is best illustrated by the joke:

A continental and analytic are having a debate on being and existence. The continental is getting frustrated, and, in anger, he shouts at the analytic, "I bet you can't even define existence!"
The analytic laughs and says, "Of course I can define existence. That's easy." He writes on the blackboard being him:
∃x(x)

how is that even a joke

Proof that there exists a y and an x such that y=x

Basically the analytic says that the definition of some 'x' is that it exists which completely misses the point about the quality of existence

yeah i know
it just isnt funny

I don't see how this post is in any way connected with the post that it's a reply to. Would you care to elaborate or explain, perhaps, how the opinion continental philosophers have of analytic philosophy is in any way related to the above post?

Philosophy jokes are very dry

What's this madman's philosophy all about? Is he worth reading for a dirty continental like myself? Like, does he have crossover appeal like Witty does?

Do his theory have actual implications in the real world, or are they just autistic word-games like most analytic """"""philosophy"""""""?

Let E be the existence predicate, then

∀x [E(x) ∃y [y = x]]

It follows that ∀x [E(x)], since ∀x[x = x] by the definition of =; so to exist is to be the value of a bound variable, which in turn is to be in the domain of quantification.

t. Quine

Why is any of this valuable information

It's a definition of existence

Cogito ergo sum

Wow, that was hard. You're welcome, I just brought you into the modern era.

That's not a definition of existence, it's a conclusion regarding one's own existence.

That's a good point.

You could say that without the autistic logical symbols

This doesnt help you understand the human condition more clearly? Jk jk jk

What's autistic about them?

Their non-necessity. They add nothing to the argument

I could replicate the argument in some English translation, but then it's more liable to being misunderstood, since an artificial language like the predicate calculus can have an unambiguous syntax and a definite interpretation procedure.

Also to say that to exist is to be the value of a bound variable makes no sense unless you have a language with variables in it, and English often doesn't (explicitly).

This is where the autism comes in
You could just say to exist is to be defineable

many people on Veeky Forums are continentals, they view anything logical, mathematical as being "autistic"

essentially anything that requires thought is deemed "autistic" by these people

I've taken courses on mathematical logic. It really doesn't take that much thought

Define "thought"

STEM fields are alot harder than the humanities fields...

most dumbass humanities students can't even tell you about the mathematics behind M-Theory or Cohlmology or Homotopy Type Theory or Morse Theory or should i go on...

P=NP
Reimann Hypothesis
Navier- Stokes equations

But that's not what I said, at all. There's a very precise meaning to it, that has nothing to do with definition.

basic couses don't mean shit...when are you going to actually revolutionize mathematical logic like kripke did if it doesn't take that much "thought"?

>look at me I can copy paste from Wikipedia a list of unsolved problems

What does being the value of a bound variable mean if not having a set value?

but why can't you dumbass humanities students actually idk fucking understand String Theory

too hard for you?

They weren't basic courses.
I'm not saying I'm a genius but that once you get used to the notation a lot of the stuff is pretty banal. It really shows that it's written by mathematicians

like i bet you dumbass humanities students couldn't describe what this paper is about

arxiv.org/pdf/0911.0018.pdf

so you think mathematics is easy...hahahahhaha you couldn't make it in algebraic geometry

I have spent no time looking into physics problems because that's personally very boring to me. But I got A's in all my physics courses in high school and college

Because you don't have the sheer intellect to understand M-Theory, String Theory P=NP etc.

I took a lot of advanced math courses and got straight A's in them. If they weren't so boring I would have continued.
But clearly you missed what I'm saying

It means that once you analyze the language in terms of a language with variables, like the predicate calculus, that thing will be one of the values that can be assigned to a variable in an assignment function.

This is important because certain things that look like they might refer to something existent may not, because once you expand the piece of language into a logical form by providing a translation into the language with variables, it might be that no such thing maps onto the variable, so it doesn't exist.

Only by seeing what our translations into this language force us to treat as a value of a variable can we see what our existential commitments are. It gives us a precise procedure for doing so.

bullshit lies...you couldn't make it into M-Theory

its too complex for your little humanities head

It's clear you're trolling considering that you're grouping compsci problems with theoretical physics problems but I'm sure I could if I could be assed to

im pretty sure you don't understand anything about P=NP , because most humanities students lack logical intelligence

I'll take your word for it senpai

analytics = undercover STEMlords

Wow man, that's incredible!

Also, (You)

I know that it's an unsliced problem in computer science about the efficiency of a computer solving some type of math problem (high degree polynomials iirc) and that it could revolutionize computing if solved

at least we respect logic

oh wait i forgot, you continentals don't believe in science or math, you think its all a "social construct"

*unsolved

no

Cool

What did it cover?

Fuck me, this board is dumber than /sp/ and /pol/.

Why would you ever of thought differently

A set of symbols which have no bearing on philosophy.

His philosophy does have some important implications for how to view the world and on the nature of necessity and possibility. His work can be applied to things like the mind-body problem and the a priori/posteriori distinction with some surprising conclusions. He also advanced a novel interpretation of Wittgenstein's private language argument so you may enjoy that

>Is he worth reading for a dirty continental like myself?

oh yes. check out his refutation of mind-brain identity

formal systems are fantasies, just like painting, drawing, kinos and so on

Congratulations. You've de-spooked yourself.