Prof Michael Sandel, Justice: ..., Episode 06: "MIND YOUR MOTIVE"      51:28: But respect for Kant,   51:30: Respect,   51:31: is respect: for humanity which is universal,   51:36: for a rational capacity which is universal.   51:38: And that's why violating it in my own case is as objectionable as violating it in the case of any other.    About the bolded, does Sandel mean the following: 1. Not only is the capacity of reason universal, such capacity is rational universally. ? If so, then this seems a stronger claim than .   But how can this be true? Humans make irrational decisions all the time. Yes, Alan Greenspan composed the term 'irrational exuberance' in the 1990s, but did Kant not know  of  ?
121209
Prof Michael Sandel, Justice: ..., Episode 06: "MIND YOUR MOTIVE" [in this episode, Prof Sandel introduces Kant.]     25:35: How many moral laws from Kant’s point of view are there in this room, are there a thousand or is there one?   25:45: He thinks there's one, which in a way does go back to this question: all right, what is the moral law, what does it   tell us? So what guarantees, it sounds like … to act autonomously, is to act according to one's conscience, according to a law   one gives oneself.   26:04: But what guarantees that ... if we all exercise our reason, we will come up with one and the same moral law? That's what Ahmady [the student whose question asked Prof Sandel to explain all this] wants to know.   26:15: Here's Kant's answer: The reason that leads us to the law we give ourselves, as autonomous beings,    is a reason.   26:33: It's a kind of practical reason that we share as human beings. It's not idiosyncratic. The reason we need to respect   the dignity of persons, is that we're all rational beings. We all have the capacity for reason. And it's the exercise of that capacity for a reason   which exist undifferentiated in all of us, that makes us worthy of dignity, all of us.   27:06: And since it's the same capacity for reason, unqualified by particular autobiographies and circumstances, it's the same universal capacity for reason that delivers the moral law. It turns out that to act autonomously, is to act according to a law we give ourselves exercising our reason. But it's the reason, we share with everyone as rational beings. Not the particular reason we have, given our upbringing, our particular values, our   particular interests.   27:46: It's pure practical reason in Kant's terms, which legislates a priori, regardless of any particular contingent or empirical ends.   How does everyone have the same capacity for reason, unqualified by particular autobiographies and circumstances? What about the mentally ill, whose capacities for reason ARE limited by their unfortunate medical circumstances? And what of babies?
38698
The exact phrase from the book of Swan (the context is choosing the words permit or allow) -      The passive structure with it is only possible with permit   Having said that...     It is not allowed to smoke in the kitchen - incorrect     It is not permitted to smoke in the kitchen - correct   I feel absolutely fine for the incorrect sentence.   Your inputs please. Make me understand this.
37246
To briefly put forward my question, can anyone beautifully explain me in your own view, what was the main intuition behind inventing the ideal of a ring? I want a clarified explanations in these points:   Why is the name "ideal" coined?. In English 'ideal' means "One that is regarded as a standard or model of perfection or excellence." Why did people gave the name of ideal to such group? And why are the ideals not present in the case of groups? And give me a very fantastic intuition and motivation behind the ideals and what are the roles served by them in advanced mathematics.   Thanks a lot, to every one.
2295
"To care all about the appearance of a matter or a law, without paying attention to its meaning/spirit and essence"  Actually, I look for a suitable word for to express such meaning, and place it in this text:    The Pharisee Jews were so/very/too ................ . That is to say, they were paying attention to the appearance of religious orders, but they didn't care about the spirit of those orders at all. Jesus told them: "You argue about the uncleanness of a dish with one another, but you do not argue about what is earned through usury or a forbidden and unclean way, that you eat in the same dish?! You're okay with usury, but you judge on trivial matters, such as the egg that a chicken laid on Saturday (Jewish holiday)?!"  The words I have found so far are:   Formalistic    and   Superficial observer   Also im not sure about to choose among these:  1. Appearance of religious orders  or  2. Outward of religious orders    Please leave me any kind of improvements and changes you think works within the whole text.
289
In propositional logic, the statement "If pigs can fly, then elephants can lay eggs." validates to true because the antecedent validates to false.  In other words, given $a \rightarrow b$, if a is false, the entire statement is true. Why?  Just because the antecendent is false doesn't mean that another fact depends on it, right?
14442
I stumbled upon this "relation" (is the name correct?):  $$ \lim_{m \to \infty} \lim_{n \to \infty} \cos^{2n}(m! \pi x) = \begin{cases} 1,&amp;x\text{ is rational}\\ 0,&amp;x\text{ is irrational}\end{cases} $$  How is it called and why is it so? I'm really not asking for a proof since I fear it would be too complicated for me to understand, but rather for an "intuition".
3383
In follow up to my question , I would like to find out whether this portion implies shapability and what restrictions are placed on shapeability.  And can the same logic be applied to a possibly game breaking point?     Choose a door, a window, or an area within range that is no larger than a 20 foot cube   It seems that this language implies shapability because the wording is "an area". But does no larger than a 20 foot cube mean no measurement can be larger than 20 feet? Or does it mean the area or volume cannot exceed that of a 20 foot cube? We already know the size can be round or rectangular (windows can be either).
120971
Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.   sbj: fathers         det: our vrb: brought forth         obj: nation                 det: a                 adj: new                 adj: *conceived*                         adv: &lt;in&gt;                                 obj: liberty                 cnj: and                 adj: *dedicated*                         adv: &lt;to&gt;                                 obj: proposition                                         det: the                                         adj: -that-                                                 sbj: men                                                         det: all                                                 vrb: are created                                                         cmp: equal         adv: &lt;on&gt;                 obj: continent                         det: this         adv: ...?   I'm working on this but can't wrap my head around the phrase in bold. I know that it's adverbial phrase of time, but what kind of phrase is it exactly? What part of speech is 'ago'? Sources don't seem to agree.
107414
I know  that uses $x={\sqrt{2}}^{\sqrt{2}}$ to prove that there must exist an irrational to an irrational power that evaluates to a rational. But I don't know if $x$ itself is known to be irrational or rational.  Could someone enlighten me? Thanks!
55146
I never saw anyone work as hard as he did, many a time I saw him on the weekends working to his highest standards to give the best research he could give.   From the context, I understand many a time equals many times. My question is when we can use this structure. Can we, for example, say many a person in place of many people?  A link explaining this structure will be appreciated.
15976
For a proposition, such as:     P: Socrates is a man   Then not P is also a proposition:     Not P: Socrates is not a man   But do the same goes for properties? One can argue in the following way:    red is a property of red flags, or of red apples; but not red is not a property; for no thing instantiates not redness; that is not redness does not cohere in some substrate - here a flag, or apple; even though whiteness, which is an example of not redness, coheres in a white wall.  Q. Is this right?  All this, I think, takes it for granted that properties cohere in some substrate or substance - this is a commitment to a specific ontology; we may choose something else; the obvious choice being a world where all that there is are bundles of properties, and no substrate or substance to which to hang them on; there, existence is also a property - a property which all existing entities have.   Q. Given this ontological commitment; then is not P also a property?
48819
Donald Rumsfeldt had a way of speaking in public, where to make his point more forcibly he would pose questions and answer them. Has Saddam Hussain bombed his own people? Yes. Has he begun the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction? Yes Are we prepared to see him terrorise his neighbours? No (This is not necessarily an accurate quotation, but just an example of the sorts of things he said).  But what interests me is this form of rhetoric which involves posing loaded questions and providing answers that make your point. Another exponent of this was Josef Stalin. In his case it has been seen by some historians as a technique he learned during his childhood education in a religious seminary. It was a form of catechism.  So what is the rhetoric called? Is it catechismic?  The word does not exist (at least not in the OED) as an adjective.   Edit. I have briefly looked at .It is not entirely a parallel example - the OP complains that his wife does it in the course of everyday conversation. I am primarily interested in the development of an argument through this process. But the former question did bring out some interesting words - e.g. sermocinatio,- @Sven Yargs - which unfortunately does not have an OED entry. But I am also fascinated by the link to catechism, which I believe may be the provenance of this in some politicians. Someone has now come up with a suitable adjective - below.    Answer. I think the closest answer has been supplied by @Old English Lapdog. It seems to be the case that there are two distinct elements to this. One is that it follows the religious practice of teaching by question and supplied answer.  In that sense it relates to catechism. But in building an argument it is rhetorical. The word catechetical in its OED (sense 3) includes a reference to Socrates. 1711   J. Addison Spectator No. 239. ¶3   Socrates introduced a Catechetical Method of Arguing. He would ask his Adversary Question upon Question, till he had convinced him out of his own Mouth that his Opinions were wrong. So I am prepared to accept catechetical as the answer.
87968
: Reasons of principle Torture treats the victim as a means to an end and not an end in themselves [First bullet] ● it treats the victim as a 'thing', not as a person with all the value that we associate with persons [I omit the other bullets because I want to understand this sentence only from itself, alone]  I contended against , but now the bold confuses me. Would someone please explain if the bolded depends on the virtues or vices of a victim? Suppose a depraved, heinous person is tortured (I'll abbreviate him as a malfeasant). Wouldn't torture correspond wih the negative values of this malfeasant, and thus this malfeasant him/herself? Is it possible that society may judge that a malfeasant not require  (last clause, para 4)? Then how does the bolded make sense? I know no philosophy, so would someone please explain the meaning of the bolded, basically and simply. Also, please recognise that I'm only trying to understand the bolded. This post only hypothesises a situation and neither implies or reflects anything about me or my opinions on torture.
5890
Jech in his &quot;Set Theory&quot; states without elaboration that cardinal concepts are not absolute generally. I think this is problematic. Any thought?
106336
I read somewhere a sentence which said about a political leader that he is the "holy something" whose actions cannot be questioned.   The context was to describe that even though this man does bad things, due to his power people are afraid to question his actions. I can not remember the correct idiom, so please help. If you know any similar idiom that can be used in such a context, that would also be great.
75427
During a lecture today the prof. posed the question of how we could write "There is exactly one person whom everybody loves." without using the uniqueness quantifier.  The first part we wrote as a logical expression was "There is one person whom everybody loves.", ignoring the 'exactly one' part of the question initially. From this he wrote  $L(x,y): x$ loves $y$; domain for $x$ and $y$: $\{\text{people}\}$  $\exists x\forall y: L(y,x)$  Which I understand to mean 'There is a person $x$ such that for all $y$, $x$ is loved by $y$' AKA 'There is a person who is loved by everyone'. I get that part.  The part I don't get is how the expression of 'exactly one'.  $\forall z(\forall y(L(y,z))\to x =z)$  which then creates the joint expression  $\exists x\forall y(L(y,x))\land \forall z(\forall y(L(y,z))\to x=z)$  I just can't seem to understand how $\forall z(\forall y(L(y,z))\to x =z)$ means exactly one here.  I suppose you can take $\forall z$ here to mean 'for any given person', which means the $\forall z$ is considering every person in the world.  This would translate the second expression block to something like, "For any given person $z$, if everybody loves $z$ then $z$ is the same person as $x$".  To me though $\forall z$ generally means for every element in the domain which I see as meaning every person in the world simultaneously, as it seems to for $y$.  Is that just plain wrong?  How can I tell when $\forall$ means 'all' and when it means 'for any (one)'?  In the previous English translation the only reason I was able to translate it (if it's even right) is because I already knew what the statement was suppose to mean.  Is it just that $\forall z$ means that this statement could be true for any element, and if so what's the difference between $\forall z$ and $\exists z$?  Someone told me that $\exists z$ would be redundant because the expression says $x=z$ but how do I know that $x$ and $z$ are automatically the same person if $\exists$ is used for both?  Sorry if this is a bit long with too many questions.  I just wanted to try to make the cause of my confusion as clear as possible so you can help me figure this out.
113248
My friend asked me this question a few days ago. I felt it's not right but couldn't find a single counterexample. Any comment is appreciated.