kospe

You're probably correct, so I guess we should just take those definitions as metaphors. @Lucky: Interesting, thanks for the information.

I see what you were talking about with LuckyNumber23 and I believe you may be correct. I don't know all the differences between the types of logic, but I believe that Aristotle could be considered to use classical logic and he said, "But propositions are opposed as contraries when both the affirmation and the denial are universal, as in the sentences 'every man is white', 'no man is white', 'every man is just', 'no man is just'." Again, this might not be classical logic, but I'll try to do more research later and I ask Lucky to please explain what he means by classical logic. I acknowledge that you didn't mean your statement to be a syllogism, but I don't necessarily see anything wrong with stating it in that form. Either way, it's not really an important issue. You also say that we shouldn't discuss propositions as opposites because they are not physical things. But I, then, have a few questions I would like answered: 1) The numbers 3 and -3 are intangible, yet wouldn't we say they are opposites? 2) Molyneux has said that virtue and vice are opposites, so isn't he violating your idea that intangible things can't be opposites? (These two questions assume, of course, that your argument would apply to all intangible things so that only physical objects have opposites. This seems a perfectly reasonable assumption based on what you've said.) 3) Even if you say that other intangible things besides propositions can be opposites, if I propose that "we should do virtuous actions" and "we should not do vicious actions", are these not still opposites? 4) You said earlier that murder and the NAP are opposites. Suppose I states them as propositions. Are not the propositions "we should always murder" and "we should never murder" still opposites even though they are propositions? Finally, you said that the OP has been refuted. It's been a few weeks since I read through this forum, but it I don't believe I was convinced at the time that the OP was refuted. But I do plan to reread the forum and evaluate the arguments.

"Murder and the Non-Aggression Principle are also defined, are also opposites and are what UPB evaluates. Thus there are opposites in logic and the OP's criticism is invalid." As I read this statement, it seems you are saying that: 1) Murder and the NAP are opposites and are evaluated by UPB 2) Therefore opposites exist in logic 3) Therefore the OP's criticism is invalid I do agree with the first two statements, but does it follow that the OP's criticism in false? Unless I'm misreading you, then I would say no because the OP's criticism is not that there are no opposites in logic, but that UPB falsely equates opposite and negation (unless, of course, you are referring to another aspect of his criticism, but I don't know what that would be). It is perfectly consistent to say that opposites and negations aren't the same and still believe that opposites exist in logic. You also seem to be replying to LuckyNumber23's comment that because directions are defined in geography, so opposites are do exist in geography. Your reply, again, as I read it, says that since Murder and the NAP are also defined and are opposites, therefore UPB always involves analyzing opposites. The problem I see with this statement is that Stefan doesn't do this. For example, he doesn't define charity and its opposite, he defines charity and its negation and then says that negation is the same as opposite. You could object, as you have done, that negation and opposite can be defined as the same, so now I will give definitions of these terms: Opposite : located at the other end, side, or corner of something; located across from something; completely different (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opposite) : situated, placed, or lying face to face with something else or each other, or in corresponding positions with relation to an intervening line, space, or thing (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opposite?s=t) : Placed or located directly across from something else or from each other (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/opposite) Negate : to cause (something) to not be effective (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negate) : to deny the existence, evidence, or truth of (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/negate?s=t) : to make ineffective or void; nullify; invalidate (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/negating) I trust you don't need definitions for words like across, deny, or nullify, but I would be able to give them if you want. Now, these are the top definitions from three major dictionaries, and clearly we can see that opposite and negate do not mean the same thing except in rare exceptions.

Here's a link of some of the most free-market/Austrian leaning universities in the US, although for all I know you might be from Canada: http://www.superscholar.org/rankings/economics/top-austrian-free-market-programs/

Sure ProfessionalTeabagger This is the best example I could find, but as I think about it, there could be other possibilities. Originally when I wrote by post, I was assuming (although I didn't realize I was assuming this until now) that this discussion about whether or not denying UPB actually confirms it was irrelevant (although still important) to the question in Trane's original post unless it was being used to answer Trane's criticism. In other words, I was thinking that, since this forum topic is about negation vs. opposite, there wouldn't be a discussion about debating and UPB unless you trying to answer Trane's attack. It is possible that this forum simply got side-tracked, as often happens, and it was foolish of me to assume one way or the other. As far as what Kevin Beal said, it's possible he simply misworded his statement and he meant to say something else. If not, then my original post is directed to him.

I want to try to clarify something for Trane. People are saying that, since he said that Stefan's UPB is flawed, he is practicing UBP and therefore his argument is invalid. I'm going to put aside the debate about whether or not Trane is showing universal preferences. I don't believe Trane has ever said that there are no universal preferences, he has simply said that Stefan's conception of it is flawed. Now, even if Trane's denial of Stefan's conception of UPB shows universal preference, that doesn't invalidate his claim that about negation vs. opposite, it simply means that there are universal preferences but Stefan has drawn false implications from that fact. Does that make sense?

Try going back to Plato and Aristotle. For example, reading The Republic, The Apology and Meno from Plato, and Nicomachean Ethics and Politics from Aristotle. There are many other great books from these authors, but that might be a good starting point. Besides that, ethical books like J.S. Mill's Utilitarianism or Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (and The Metaphysics of Morals) provide interesting reads. In political philosophy, look at Mill's On Liberty, Rousseau's Origin of Inequality and The Social Contract, John Locke's Second Treatise on Government, and finally, Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty. As far as metaphysics and epistemology, I have read so little of these topics that I don't feel qualified to suggest anything. Hope that helps!

Thanks for the advice! What are Aristotle's Metaphysics and Everitt's Modern Epistemology like?

I'm curious what philosophers and philosophical books people here have read, libertarian or otherwise.

Before I directly respond, you may find it interesting to note that most scholars believe Plato wrote these dialogues and their not necessarily the views of Socrates, although no one knows for sure. Of course you may know that already this, I just thought it was worth noting anyway. I'm happy you brought up these two dialogues because I happened to have read them a few weeks ago, what perfect timing! 1. Since you brought up the dictionary, I went ahead and looked it up and found there were essentially two different definitions, first respecting and honoring God, the second having honor or respect for your parents, country, laws etc. Both these definitions fit what Euthyphro is getting at. To the first, he clearing has piety towards God because he's willing to prosecute his own father. And the second, he plainly has preference for the laws of his country over anything else. More should be said on this second definition. It's typical in democracies and republics for the people to love their country and its laws. This is the reason the Roman republic lasted so long, it was only after the people became too worried with their own self-interest that it fell into an empire. There are other examples, and Charles Montesquieu makes this point loud and clear in his Spirit of the Laws. My point is that you’re absolutely right, Euthyphro hit the nail and the head, Socrates (or Plato) just didn't see it. 2. As I recall (although I don't remember for sure), there were two reasons why Socrates refused to go. One was the martyrdom argument which Snipes already addressed. The second argument was basically the social contract theory which I don't agree with. If you're not already familiar with the arguments against it, rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll point you to a great little book called No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner where he argues that the US Constitution doesn't set up a social contract with the citizens. I hope I answered your questions and gave you something to think about!