unenlightenedJanuary 05, 2017 at 21:13#444410 likes
p1. If the dog has exploded, my work is done.
p2. The dog has exploded.
c1. My work is done.
...
p3. If my premises are true, my conclusion is true. (My argument is valid.)
p4. My premises are true. (It is true that my argument is valid, and it is true that it is true.)
c2. My conclusion is true. (Ain't that the truth!)
We're talking about material implication. If A, then B. That is stating a logical connection between A and B.
Don't think so.
If you're in North America, you're an asshole.
There's nothing about being in North America that causes asshole-hood, so we're just looking at incidence, not consequence. There's an association, but the cause of both could be a third entity.
The Malankovitch Cycle resulted in an attraction of the world's assholes to North America.
1. All men are animals
2. If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is an animal.
So you're trying to say that if all men are animals, then the conditional (2) is always true. There's a bit of sophistry in this to be honest. A conditional is false only if the consequent is false given the antecedent. If someone grants (1), then whether Socrates is a man or not has no bearing on the truth of (2). The whole question is whether or not Socrates is an animal follows from Socrates is a man, and given (1) it does, as we already know from the traditional 3 premise argument (we couldn't draw its conclusion otherwise). But the reason why I say it's a sophistry, is that it doesn't tell us anything about how things actually are. It doesn't actually tell us if Socrates is a man or an animal. Socrates could be a man and an animal, or he could be an animal, or he could be neither - what couldn't be the case is that Socrates is a man and yet isn't an animal. And the fact is that (2) is a specific example of the general clause covered by (1). You could replace Socrates with a variable, and then you'd get an identical statement with (1). (2) is just a specific instance of (1) in other words.
unenlightenedJanuary 05, 2017 at 23:50#444920 likes
But the reason why I say it's a sophistry, is that it doesn't tell us anything about how things actually are. It doesn't actually tell us if Socrates is a man or an animal.
Yes, that is correct; a conditional does not say how things are, but only that if they are thus then they are so. After all, it is equally the case that if Zeus is a man then Zeus is an animal (given 1.).
But of course we know Zeus is not a man. But if you look back a few posts, it is still the case that conditional premises can function in logical arguments.
It might be that 2. is true even though 1. is false. For instance it might be the case that:
3. all men except Buddha and Jesus are animals.
In which case 2. follows from 3 and 1. is false.
Now if 1. can be false and 2. true, I think you have to admit that they do not say the same thing, or that one is contained in or an instance of the other.
It is the nature of argument that a conclusion must always say the same or less than the sum of its premises, and it is au contraire sophistry and necessarily illogical to demand that more should be said.
Does it? Wouldn't 2. have to say "If Socrates is a man, and Socrates isn't Buddha or Jesus, then Socrates is an animal?" If so, then my criticism is still valid.
Personally unenlightened, I would be very surprised if there can be non-tautologous and non-circular one premise arguments. They must all be reducible, in principle, to:
A
Therefore A
Otherwise I fail to see how they could follow;
A
Therefore B
Only follows if B is in some way related to A, and the only way it can be related to A must be defined through A itself, and thus B must be contained within A (be a particular instance of it). I am a man of faith, and I have faith in common sense.
unenlightenedJanuary 06, 2017 at 00:19#445030 likes
Reply to Agustino Well if you want to be so picky, I can modify 3. instead of 2. as you do, thusly:
4. All men except Buddha and Jesus, who have no other monikers particularly Greek ones, are animals.
4. All men except Buddha and Jesus, who have no other monikers particularly Greek ones, are animals.
No, because 2. would have to say "If Socrates is a man, and Socrates isn't Buddha or Jesus, and he has no other monikers particularly greek ones, then Socrates is an animal"
It is not defined in 2. whether Socrates is a Greek, whether he isn't Buddha or Jesus, and whatever other conditions you put in 1. And neither is such a thing defined in 1. And it must be defined somewhere for the conclusion to follow. So either you put it as additional premises, or you put it within the conditional. This is necessary - I fail to see how this could be otherwise.
If you say "If A then B" then it makes perfect sense to talk about B as the conclusion, and to question whether it follows.
A conditional claim such as "If A then B" has a premiss, which is that A implies B. If A is true (this would be a separate premiss), we could conclude that B is true. You can only conclude B once you have the additional premiss that A is true but the sentence "if A then B" does not state A is true and therefore no conclusion can be made from it.
Does it? Wouldn't 2. have to say "If Socrates is a man, and Socrates isn't Buddha or Jesus, then Socrates is an animal?" If so, then my criticism is still valid.
Personally unenlightened, I would be very surprised if there can be non-tautologous and non-circular one premise arguments. They must all be reducible, in principle, to:
A
Therefore A
Otherwise I fail to see how they could follow;
A
Therefore B
Only follows if B is in some way related to A, and the only way it can be related to A must be defined through A itself, and thus B must be contained within A (be a particular instance of it). I am a man of faith, and I have faith in common sense.
There's nothing about being in North America that causes asshole-hood, so we're just looking at incidence, not consequence. There's an association, but the cause of both could be a third entity.
The Malankovitch Cycle resulted in an attraction of the world's assholes to North America.
It isn't about causation, but it [I]is[/I] about a [i]logical connection[/I] - whether that is explicated by incidence, causation, or otherwise. And it [I]is[/I] nevertheless about consequence, but not if you're just using that as a synonym for "cause". It is saying that [I]if[/I] you are in North America, [I]then[/I] you are an asshole. That is the consequence of being in North America - [i]whatever the reason[/I]. It could be to do with genetics, the environment, the culture, or a coincidence, but logically, in this limited respect, that doesn't make a difference. And there is no way around that one. If that conditional statement is true, then it is logically impossible to simultaneously be in North America and [i]not[/I] be an asshole.
The consequent is true as a result or [I]consequence[/I] of the antecedent being true - the latter of which, in your example, would mean being in North America. It is called the consequent for a reason.
A conditional claim such as "If A then B" has a premiss, which is that A implies B. If A is true (this would be a separate premiss), we could conclude that B is true. You can only conclude B once you have the additional premiss that A is true but the sentence "if A then B" does not state A is true and therefore no conclusion can be made from it.
p1. If A then B
p2. A
C. therefore B
Yeah, I completely agree. It was poor wording on my part. I was trying to get across that it is saying that A implies B, but I shouldn't have been referring to B as the conclusion. It is saying that the antecedent implies the consequent.
Reply to Sapientia The reason you are an asshole if you are from america is because you are better than the rest of the world, and that makes you come off as an asshole.
>:)
[I]Even if[/I] true, you only got there because of [i]Great[/I] Britain, and our great empire, which I do believe remains to be the largest empire there has ever been.
See, a conditional statement is hypothesis conclusion, and the only sense in which they are subject to necessity and contradiction is through negation. All forms of conditional statement in a truth table are true except for one, which is false. The form where the hypothesis is true but the conclusion is false. This is because the form "if a then b" doesn't of course work in reverse. But if b but not a then it still might be true. If neither a nor b, then it still might be true. If a and b, then it seems the most true, but it still just might be true. All that is established is correlation, or co-incidence at best. Think Hume, causes aren't observed, and induction is strictly speaking, always logically invalid. Or all contingent arguments, as they don't rely on necessity or contradiction. The best course is clearly falsificationism, because it is the only one that leads to a necessity through negation. If the conclusion is false but the hypothesis true, so that the correlation is not established in the suggested order. In all other cases, it might be true.
And when you learned that the man was dead you immediately queried yourself on how he could have been dead when everybody could see him and how all the interactions you thought he had with people could have happeded and how all the conversations he had with his wife could be explained.
Happeded. >:O
That's my new favourite word. This might just be the happededess day of my life.
Also, what is the difference, if any, between a mouse and a gorilla?
Is suffering all there is? No. Obviously not.
Lower Case NUMBERSJanuary 06, 2017 at 20:53#448340 likes
Your earlier reply proves exactly what I have said. (1) is a general level statement, and (2) is a more specific instance of (1). (2) is included in (1), and amounts of begging the question.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 07, 2017 at 12:49#449950 likes
The day has arrived, actually it probably happened years ago but I am just now accepting it, but my children have both exceeded my book knowledge of the world. Experience? Nah, I still have them beat but the things my 17 yr old indian talks so easily about are things I have never heard of and some I cannot even wrap my mind around.
What happens next? :D
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 07, 2017 at 12:55#449970 likes
Here is a prime example of what he talks about that my mind melts on the 'how' : 4D Printing
He wants to do this now!!! I am doing back flips and he looks at me out of the corner of his eye and asks, did I not know about this?
Serious or smart ass?
Did the film [i]Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel[/I] definitively resolve the the question of how the human mind and body can causally interact?
Who are these intellectual snobs, suffering under the oppressive reality of a dominance hierarchy?
I'm not interested in truth but rather status (which genuine curiosity might confer in this neighborhood). I don't have any in any domain. Donald Trump would call me a loser. :(
This would be a perfect moment for a raised eyebrow smilie
Look, Meryl is not happy, Whoopie swore she would move, along with a bunch of other folks if Trump was elected. Though I did not EVER want Hillary, anywhere near the Presidential office, I never said that if she was elected, I would leave the country. If these folks are so worked up about the 45th President elect, such as yourself Sapientia, then please open your arms and welcome the lot of them in.
The USA is to be United and Meryl along with Elizabeth Warren don't want to unite so let them go, be free!
In the meantime, the rest of us are going to do what we have been doing, day in and day out and that is working our asses off to obtain clients that pay, stay and refer. They are the bread and butter of our small business existence and in the last 8 years the strangle hold of regulations has been near lethal for the businesses that we help grow. There is not a single small business owner, in OUR profession of POS (Point Of Sale) computer networking business, that is not GENUINELY excited about what the next 4-8 yrs hold.
And Sapientia my fine feathered friend, excitement in the small business world is like gasoline being poured onto a log of Pitch that has been smoldering for almost a decade.
Like a Phoenix, the USA is rising from the ashes.
unenlightenedJanuary 09, 2017 at 14:46#454980 likes
The USA is to be United and Meryl along with Elizabeth Warren don't want to unite so let them go, be free!
If the USA really is to be united, Meryl and Elizabeth are the least of your worries, the 100 million or so other Americans who consider Trump an abomination (read the polls) may be a somewhat more inconvenient assemblage to force to walk the plank of the good ship, Trumpmerica.
There is not a single small business owner, in OUR profession of POS (Point Of Sale) computer networking business, that is not GENUINELY excited about what the next 4-8 yrs hold.
Deregulation will probably help small business owners like yourselves, but that doesn't make Trump's overall economic plan of more spending (infrastructure, the military, his hair) and less revenue (massive tax cuts for the rich), desirable. (Do the math).
True. And the genius tweeted 'Let's have an arms race' or some such.
Looks hard.
Robert LockhartJanuary 09, 2017 at 16:27#455290 likes
15...30...45...60 - Bam!...Never mind all that 'Where am I comin from/goin to?' mularky – Just how come's so friggin short? - An' how's such a blink of an eye meant to accommodate time sufficient to exaust the impulses of human immaturity, thereby permitting at the end the requisite equinimanous state of, 'All passion spent' and the statutarily required attitude of serene reconciliation towards the encroaching 'Eternal Dream'? Talk about, 'short-changed'? Wouldn't be so bad if there was even a Complaints Dept. - Should be ‘done’ under the ‘Trade Descriptions Act’! :(
NB. Conversly with regard to the above, I' ve admittedly heard it said that on a journey distance travelled is not necessarily proportional to time taken - so that in retrospect, it can turn out that someone who didn't make it past 25 nonetheless ultimately had a more meaningful life-experience than another who made it past 90!
Robert LockhartJanuary 09, 2017 at 16:49#455500 likes
Among various Immortal-Truth type aphorisms recently seen inscribed on a public urinal wall - "Daft women can't invent things."
Robert LockhartJanuary 09, 2017 at 20:08#456150 likes
War, like scaling the Eiger, is for some a required thing. Risk-takers are generally more alive in that respect.
Look, Meryl is not happy, Whoopie swore she would move, along with a bunch of other folks if Trump was elected. Though I did not EVER want Hillary, anywhere near the Presidential office, I never said that if she was elected, I would leave the country. If these folks are so worked up about the 45th President elect, such as yourself Sapientia, then please open your arms and welcome the lot of them in.
The USA is to be United and Meryl along with Elizabeth Warren don't want to unite so let them go, be free!
In the meantime, the rest of us are going to do what we have been doing, day in and day out and that is working our asses off to obtain clients that pay, stay and refer. They are the bread and butter of our small business existence and in the last 8 years the strangle hold of regulations has been near lethal for the businesses that we help grow. There is not a single small business owner, in OUR profession of POS (Point Of Sale) computer networking business, that is not GENUINELY excited about what the next 4-8 yrs hold.
And Sapientia my fine feathered friend, excitement in the small business world is like gasoline being poured onto a log of Pitch that has been smoldering for almost a decade.
Like a Phoenix, the USA is rising from the ashes.
Are you suggesting that anyone critical - and rightly so, by the way - of Donald Trump is unwelcome in the US? How can you people keep jumping to this man's defence? Irrespective of who is wrong and who is right here - and it's clear to me which way around it is - just compare the criticism with it's reply. On the one hand, you've got a thoughtful, eloquent, passionate speech; and on the other hand, you've got a childish name-calling and outright denial.
It's weird. It's like the moral of the boy who cried wolf somehow doesn't apply when it comes to Trump. Caught red handed? Yes. Apologise? No. Just deny it and call 'em a name, and large swathes of people will lap it up and jump to your defence. Instead of taking the side of those in defence of the victim, take the side of the powerful, tax dodging, immoral, lying, narcissistic, bully.
I've sometimes thought there must be something unmanly in me, that I don't fancy scaling the Eiger, nor marching as to war, or off to, war.
What?! Who [i]wouldn't[/I] want the chance to kill people or get shot or blown to pieces or have to have a limb or two removed or captured and tortured...?
What?! Who wouldn't want the chance to kill people or get shot or blown to pieces or have to have a limb or two removed or captured and tortured...?
And yet I see people who looked just like me, in 1914, eagerly joining their mates to go off and help that nice Lord Kitchener. And in faraway countries lots of bold youngsters eager to repel invaders.
Mayor of SimpletonJanuary 09, 2017 at 22:26#456650 likes
You know that's a myth, right? In the real world nothing rises from the ashes except the stench of burning corpses.
un, have I told you that you have a hell of a way with words? (Y)
but
I respectfully disagree with your colorful assertion of the Phoenix and the legend of the Phoenix, not just from living in Phoenix but from my Instructor in Greek Mythology back in college (the man was an amazing instructor but that is for another time ;) ) . True the Phoenix does turn into ashes after living 500 years HOWEVER a new bird rises from the ashes. Still I rise comes to mind, maybe you have heard it...
[i]"Just like moons and like suns,
With the certainty of tides,
Just like hopes springing high,
Still I'll rise."[/i]
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 11, 2017 at 12:12#459580 likes
Deregulation will probably help small business owners like yourselves, but that doesn't make Trump's overall economic plan of more spending (infrastructure, the military, his hair) and less revenue (massive tax cuts for the rich), desirable. (Do the math).
I don't agree with everything Trump is proposing I assure you. I have great reservations on what his administration can and might attempt to thwart the will of the voters regarding MANY issues and industries close to my heart and health. However, when it comes to deregulation, I have expectations NOT hopes. I will hold any president accountable for what happens under their watch in the same way that I am responsible for my children, while under my watch and extends to anyone I entrust their care into. It's not a light topic nor should any of them be. Leave the States to care for those that pay for their state to do so.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 11, 2017 at 12:15#459590 likes
It's all fun and games until somebody creates an image of a continent full of smoking corpses.
Ya know?
unenlightenedJanuary 11, 2017 at 12:19#459600 likes
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Great poem. But let me try and put the fear of Putin into you. He has defeated the west in Ukraine, he has trounced us in Syria, and he has defeated the American people in their own election. Europe is falling apart, and Your new leader has been persuaded to turn his baleful eye away from Russia and towards China, while you own country looks set to spiral towards corruption, tyranny and civil war.
Trump isn't a player, he's pawn and he's not even one of your pawns.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 11, 2017 at 12:32#459630 likes
Are you suggesting that anyone critical - and rightly so, by the way - of Donald Trump is unwelcome in the US? How can you people keep jumping to this man's defense? Irrespective of who is wrong and who is right here - and it's clear to me which way around it is - just compare the criticism with it's reply. On the one hand, you've got a thoughtful, eloquent, passionate speech; and on the other hand, you've got a childish name-calling and outright denial.
It's weird. It's like the moral of the boy who cried wolf somehow doesn't apply when it comes to Trump. Caught red handed? Yes. Apologize? No. Just deny it and call 'em a name, and large swathes of people will lap it up and jump to your defense. Instead of taking the side of those in defense of the victim, take the side of the powerful, tax dodging, immoral, lying, narcissistic, bully.
Of course that is not what I said, nor was it the spirit of my words to apply to ANYONE who disagrees with our next President, which by the way Donald Trump is.
I don't agree with everything ANY President has said, nor do I feel the need to defend his every comment or decision. I have very few hills that I would be willing to die on in regards to my Governments position but there are a couple. AND I assure you that there are PLENTY of other Americans that are going to try at every turn, to keep our President 'in check' on the hills they are willing to die on.
For instance: the great southern wall that Trump is building will have to cross over 75 miles of a Tribal Nation, which has decided that they will not let a bigger wall be built on. The Tribal Chief has made it clear that it IS a hill he is willing to die on.
Wants and desires will be challenged and Trump seems to be following the Reagan theory of getting 80% of the folks in your camp and go back for the other 20%. Seeing as Arizona is almost 70% non Caucasian, it is not in their best interest to honor the immigration ideas that Trump suggested as a nominee.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 11, 2017 at 12:53#459680 likes
Great poem. But let me try and put the fear of Putin into you. He has defeated the west in Ukraine, he has trounced us in Syria, and he has defeated the American people in their own election. Europe is falling apart, and Your new leader has been persuaded to turn his baleful eye away from Russia and towards China, while you own country looks set to spiral towards corruption, tyranny and civil war.
Trump isn't a player, he's pawn and he's not even one of your pawns.
un, you know my respect for you and your thoughts, so trust me when I share the same fear that you speak of. The problem is that 'this horse' has left the barn. Meaning it was within the Obama administration that the USA was shown to be 'weak and apologetic' and for the last 8 years, our country has been destroying itself from the top down. I am not judging what those who voted for Obama expected but he met my expectation but I need not digress into how he achieved such a sub-level assessment.
Our government is meant to be 'up' for a new leader every 4 years and only two terms for the very reason you are witnessing now. We do not wish to experience another civil war but if we didn't learn anything the first time, then we are doomed to repeat it. As far as corruption? It is in every administration and I doubt that will ever change but tyranny?
On November 8th, we stood at the final toll, AFTER all the warning signs of Trump and Clinton were exposed and we as a collective of states, called a union, voted and the election was won. I am going to give Trump the best shot I can because I want to see our nation not just survive but thrive.
I do hope in your heart of hearts, that Americans thriving is something you wish to see as well, as I have never wished anything but the best for you.
What more can I do?
unenlightenedJanuary 11, 2017 at 13:03#459710 likes
I do hope in your heart of hearts, that Americans thriving is something you wish to see as well, as I have never wished anything but the best for you.
What more can I do?
Unfortunately, I have no faith at all in the efficacy of my wishes for your thriving. America will decline; it does not look as if it will do so gracefully or peacefully. By all means give it your best shot, but keep the larder well stocked.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 11, 2017 at 13:33#459750 likes
Unfortunately, I have no faith at all in the efficacy of my wishes for your thriving. America will decline; it does not look as if it will do so gracefully or peacefully. By all means give it your best shot, but keep the larder well stocked.
Why is it that you so often agree with that little voice inside my head, that starts trying to change my opinion, every time I head out with the best of intentions, regardless of the doubters of my success or the cheerleaders of my failures.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff I hope your business thrives under the Trump administration. The US government usually has limited control over the US economy. Though it's become common to judge the government by how well the economy is doing, that tendency reveals attitudes that are at variance with reality.
As for the greatness of the US... the US rose to prominence in the 1940s after most of the world had exhausted itself in global war. It was a unique set of circumstances. Though some Americans dreamed of the American Century... others dreamed of the US taking a place in a global coalition... the UN (that didn't work out, obviously.)
As for the future, the 22 Century will be very different by virtue of an energy crisis due to depletion of oil and gas. The US is in a pretty secure position. So is Russia and China. Europe, on the other hand, heavily dependent now on gas, will face much greater challenges. One possibility is retrogression.
In other words.. change is on the horizon. There may be some aspects of the future that we haven't even guessed.
Reply to Heister Eggcart It's good, you can start by being a plumber and fixing the pipes - if you control them, you'll certainly rule over the economy :D
Recently read this essay by Sarah Perry, entitled Ritual Epistemology:
"Objectively, our modern justice system may be no better at arriving at truth and justice than the Grand Amphibian system. But that is not its true purpose. The point is to resolve disputes in a manner that is generally recognized as final, such that its decisions have the reasonable support and respect of the community. A purely rational system that dispenses with ceremony in favor of accuracy would likely not serve this purpose at all. “Bring on the handcuffs,” perhaps – and the black robes, imposing architecture, and arcane rules.
This is the post-rationalist critique: that irrational-seeming systems often serve the interests of people better than purely rational systems that attempt to dispense with ceremony."
Reply to jamalrob Yea, same thought occurred to me. Light is associated with knowledge (in some cultures?). The night is scary because the monster in the darkness is unseen, unknown...
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 12, 2017 at 13:11#462650 likes
Reply to Mongrel Thank you! I appreciate your supporting the success of our business for it really means a lot to me. I tease my husband that we went from eating rice and beans to eating beans and when I started hauling my own trash to the dump in 2008, I told him these must be the 'refried beans' days. Hauling my own trash was a low for me and having our curbside service restored this December was AMAZING to me! No more bagging it, tossing it on the trailer, listening to the Coyotes get into the bags and rip them to shreds to get to the contents because that meant a huge cleanup in the morning and if it was windy, well, anyway. I think our refried beans days are going to get better and now when the trash truck comes to get our trash, I am genuinely excited about the magic that is about to happen. Funny how we interpret things differently as we move through life.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff When I was a massage therapist, I chose as my marker of success that I'd have a service wash all my massage table sheets for me. I did get to that point about a year before 9/11 (when my business just kind of disappeared.)
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 12, 2017 at 13:24#462760 likes
Reply to Mongrel That is a shame when we as a nation have such a high level of deprivation of touch. I hope you have channeled your healing energies to a higher step and feel appreciated.
I'm an intensive care nurse now. I don't heal anybody. I held a lady's hand the other day while she was going through something crappy.
Robert LockhartJanuary 12, 2017 at 14:27#462890 likes
Mcdoodle: The psychology of some in terms of their life choices can indeed seem somewhat perverse to others. But there is evidence nonetheless to suggest that risk-takers with a propensity to engage in 'constructive' challenge do in practice experience a higher quality of life – if perhaps on average also a briefer experience of same! It’s of course all to do with how a given individual perceives, even if subliminally, what actually constitutes meaning in their life and how in that respect distance travelled might not necessarily be proportional to time involved!
Personally, with regard to the clearly fulfilling life-style of some people I actually know who mountaineer as a 'hobby' in my own country, Scotland, I sometimes feel - as I sit at my reasuringly comfortable office desk - a disconcerting envy! Then again, as a reminder of the unavoidable danger this activity involves, I also once heard of a talented mountaineer who died aged only 21 while he was taking part in a particularly challenging Alpine expedition. Although of course an extreem example, perhaps even such a case could involve some ambiguity when estimating the overall degree of tragedy ultimately thereby obtaining. - How to render such equations comprehensible?
Haven't been sleeping or eating. Lost 11 pounds this week. No drugs and no cigarettes, all of the other shit has to come first... my furious rage and anxiety gave way to amusement earlier today... the crushing realization of all of that stuff I haven't been doing is back, and I'm going to have to get a whole lot done in a very short amount of time... might lose my mind for awhile again. When Utena arrives, that means I've become psychotic. I'm at a high level of energy, think I'll go visit my mom, and compete with her about which one of us is more godly.
She's into that David Icke stuff, and thinks that she's one of those hybrid alien lizards from the 4th dimension -- but Icke is actually the bad guy, trying to subvert our benevolent hyper-dimensional overlords.
She's also the happiest, and most content one in the family though (other than me, as I will assert later to her), insanity is actually a lot of fun.
It's seasonal. Normally I can easily afford to just take the winter off, but had a lot of extra expenses, so have to find something just temporarily until spring.
Your earlier reply proves exactly what I have said. (1) is a general level statement, and (2) is a more specific instance of (1). (2) is included in (1), and amounts of begging the question.
Ok, so you don't understand how basic logic works. Nice. That 2 is "included" in 1, does not mean that 1 = 2, which is what you're saying when you say "A, therefore A". There is no begging the question going on.
If you form an argument like:
All numbers divisible by 2 are even
Therefore if 2 is divisible by 2, then 2 is even
You're saying a little bit of tautologous crap because the first statement includes the particular case of number 2 within it. Number 2 becomes a subset of it.
If you form an argument like:
All numbers divisible by 2 are even
Therefore if 2 is divisible by 2, then 2 is even
You're saying a little bit of tautologous crap because the first statement includes the particular case of number 2 within it. Number 2 becomes a subset of it.
So if I form the argument:
All men are mortal
Therefore, if Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal
Then this is tautologous because Socrates is a subset of men?
Your reasoning seems to attack the very concept of a syllogism.
Then this is tautologous because Socrates is a subset of men?
No it's tautologous because you're saying that:
A
Therefore if X is subset of A, then X is true
It's a tautology because A already affirms the truth of X (where X is any potential subset)- the conclusion doesn't add anything to the fact that A, and all its subsets are the case. It doesn't even tell me if X is actually a subset of A in fact. I really have gained no knowledge by knowing the conclusion than I initially had by knowing the premise that A is the case.
Your reasoning seems to attack the very concept of a syllogism.
Maybe you could actually take this down a Pyrrhonian route - but you'd have to expand it to multi-premise arguments - and then claim that syllogisms are useless because their conclusions add nothing to what the premises are already telling us. And you'll then arrive at the old Aristotelian problem of philosophy - how to have correct premises - which becomes even more important than the syllogism, which ends up being merely a way of presenting the knowledge already existing in the premises, and not of "proving" anything or obtaining new true premises.
If you form an argument like:
All numbers divisible by 2 are even
Therefore if 2 is divisible by 2, then 2 is even
You're saying a little bit of tautologous crap because the first statement includes the particular case of number 2 within it. Number 2 becomes a subset of it.
That's putting the horse behind the carriage. The number 2 does not become a subset of it. Because it is a subset of numbers divisible by 2 (premise) it therefore is even (conclusion). Also, normal usage of the english language would suggest a conclusion follows after "therefore" but instead you introduce a second premise after that word. The additional (now conditional premise) is that 2 is a subset of the main set. Correct presentation of the argument would be, if you want to use a "single premise" argument:
All numbers divisible by 2 are even
If 2 is divisible by 2 then it is even
or
2 is divisible by 2 therefore it is even (see what I did there?)
This really is no different from saying:
A = B
If C = subset of A then B (it merely becomes a necessary condition)
From the earlier high school link, it should be clear that the set "2, 4, 8, 10 ,etc" is not the same as the subset of "2". Replacing the numbers for words as per the example from the high school text: {banana, coconut, strawberry} is not equal to {banana}. There's therefore no tautology going on.
Because it is a subset of numbers divisible by 2 (premise)
Where is such a premise? Where do you see a premise, in the single premise argument, which states that the "number 2" is a a subset of "numbers divisible by 2"? The conclusion in the single premise argument doesn't tell us whether 2 is even - it tells us that 2 is even if it is divisible by 2 (which, in the single premise argument isn't known).
Also, normal usage of the english language would suggest a conclusion follows after "therefore" but instead you introduce a second premise after that word
But the conclusion IS the conditional statement "if 2 is divisible by 2, then 2 is even" - this seems to be the part that you do not get.
From the earlier high school link, it should be clear that the set "2, 4, 8, 10 ,etc" is not the same as the subset of "2". Replacing the numbers for words as per the example from the high school text: {banana, coconut, strawberry} is not equal to {banana}. There's therefore no tautology going on.
LOL! >:O As if I ever claimed it was. But look -
Definition: Set_1 = {banana, coconut, strawberry}
Definition: Set_2 = {banana}
Premise 1: Set_1
Conclusion: If Set_2 is a subset of Set_1, then Set_2
Is this latter one a tautology? If yes, then the first one is as well. And it is a tautology because it doesn't tell me anything that I do not already know from premise 1.
>:O Yes I thought yours were a bit too boring. But anyway, I haven't even insulted you, I showed you a video. Your own mind is associating an insult with the video of a movie - I wonder why it's doing that.
No, no. It's dynamite Thor! He solves all of his problems with dynamite, and is himself immune to explosions (but maybe only his own dynamite? It's unclear), and flies by exploding himself along.
He's indestructible, and never at risk. Always leagues ahead of everyone else, not only unbeatable, by able to obliterate every opponent he faces with one punch.
Similarly people are said to like under dog stories, and Disney was delivering them in the 80s and early 90s, but then they began with the royalty, and nobility, and took the world by storm. Though, Aristotle could have told you that one.
Reply to Wosret One punch man creates dramatic tension by leveraging that characters psychological vulnerabilities.
At least in the first season, I have only seen the first season.
One punch man craves recognition.
Is he manipulated or defeated by wanting recognition? Is it a vulnerability? Isn't it actually the case that when he showed up and made everyone look bad that he claimed that he barely did anything, and just likes to take all of the credit, because he's a dick?
Quite to the contrary, the physical and emotional vulnerabilities of everyone else in their fights, and pursuits of goals are on display to show how he is never susceptible to them.
It's also never been about recognition, it has always been a hobby, for fun.
Reply to Wosret Yeah that is what he says that it is just for fun but..
He joined the hero organization for some reason.
He also cares about his rank in that organization.
And he get's upset when he does not get credit for his deeds.
Yeah, he cares about stuff, and wants things, but in order for these things to be vulnerabilities they must compromise him in some way that could lead to his defeat. When does anything like that ever happen?
You can't simply count wanting stuff and caring about things as flaws...
Reply to Wosret
That is true I guess, he has not really been exploited emotionally or psychologically yet.
Or at least I can't remember anything like that.
I think that potential to be exploited that way is there though.
It also makes him more relatable..
That and he has mundane problems too, that made him more relatable as well.
One punch man was also not always invulnerable, remember that story he told about the crab guy that beat the crap out of him.
The writers did not paint themselves into a corner as having a completely invulnerable character they could have him exploited psychologically and his back story includes vulnerability.
The show is definitely a very fresh take on the super hero theme though.
If you're read the comic, you'd see that much more than physical fighting, it focuses on characters being emotionally compromised in pursuit of their goals, and the back-handed tactics they use in order to achieve that recognition, which most of the time isn't even deserved.
Far more of the story is about how he isn't psychologically vulnerable like everyone else is that's after the same things in the comic. They just focus on the fights in the anime.
It's actually a brilliant story. He, like everyone else the story focuses on, wants to be the best hero, able to defeat any villain in a single punch -- but the ways in which they achieve it are vastly different, and why he succeeded where everyone else failed. He simply did the conventional things, whereas everyone else relies on magic, manipulation, technology, or believes that there's a big secret, and the way to get there is complex, hidden, and arcane.
Reply to Agustino It seems you're confusing a propositional logical tautology and a rhetorical tautology. You keep trying to reconstruct syllogisms (whether one or two premises makes no difference) to fit a rhetorical tautology (a redundancy), which leads to a misrepresentation of the syllogisms. A propositional logical tautology, such as a syllogism, is a tautology because its formula is always true regardless of the values of the propositional variables (in other words it is always a valid argument irrespective of whether the predicates are true). This is not the same as reconstructing "A implies B, B implies C, therefore A implies C" as "A therefore A", which you keep doing. The former is a propositional logical tautology but not a rhetorical tautology. The latter is both but they're very distinct.
Reply to Wosret Oh, I was just going by the animated show.
I have never read the comic and did not realize that he was portrayed as being psychologically invulnerable as well in the comic.
I like the anime and I think it is a fresh take on the super hero motif.
I probably won't get around to reading the comics though.
lol
Reminds me of the walking dead, everyone says the comics are way better, but I still really enjoy the show.
Reply to Wosret
Yeah that is a dynamic that the animated show does not really touch on in any way that I can see.
That also sounds like an interesting angle to explore.
It seems you're confusing a propositional logical tautology and a rhetorical tautology
Why does it seem so to you?
The rest of your comment honestly seems like nonsense to me. I don't even understand what you're trying to say. You're defining a logical tautology to me - which I know very well what it is, it is applied to propositions and it happens when the truth-table of the composed proposition only has true values regardless of the values of the predicates such as below:
A | ~A | A or ~A
T | F | T
F | T | T
Cool story! What's there to say with this though? What's your point?
This is not the same as reconstructing "A implies B, B implies C, therefore A implies C" as "A therefore A", which you keep doing
I never reconstructed a 2 premise argument as A therefore A. A single premise argument COULD be of the form A therefore A though. It could also be of the form A therefore B (which is a subset of A).
I said a single premise argument is a tautology. And obviously I didn't mean logically a tautology the same way a proposition such as A -> A is a tautology, where it is equivalent to ~A or A. I meant and I've explained this several times before that it is a tautology since it adds nothing to what the premise is already telling us. I could give you some bullshit argument like:
1. All numbers divisible by 2 are even
2. Therefore If Socrates is a number and Socrates is divisible by 2, then Socrates is even >:O
Great story! What do we do with it?
So tell me, what are these explanations that I will post below?
Your earlier reply proves exactly what I have said. (1) is a general level statement, and (2) is a more specific instance of (1). (2) is included in (1), and amounts of begging the question.
No it's tautologous because you're saying that:
A
Therefore if X is subset of A, then X is true
It's a tautology because A already affirms the truth of X (where X is any potential subset)- the conclusion doesn't add anything to the fact that A, and all its subsets are the case. It doesn't even tell me if X is actually a subset of A in fact. I really have gained no knowledge by knowing the conclusion than I initially had by knowing the premise that A is the case.
This contains a conditional premise "if x implies A" irrespective of your use of the word "therefore". It's bad grammar and logic. It's not only a conclusion and therefore not a single premise argument but 2. As a consequence, you're reducing a syllogism to a rhetorical tautology.
But let's ask the audience instead of repeating our steps because quite obviously this is going nowhere. Who here, besides Agustino, thinks I'm wrong and if so where's my mistake? Or are we just talking past each other?
This contains a conditional premise "if x implies A" irrespective of your use of the word "therefore". It's bad grammar and logic. It's not only a conclusion and therefore not a single premise argument but 2. As a consequence, you're reducing a syllogism to a rhetorical tautology.
Yes but if you analyse the truth table of the conditional, you'll see that the conditional can be true even if "x implies A" is false (that's what makes it a conditional actually). The only time when the conditional is false is if "x implies A" is true, but "X is true" isn't true. So it doesn't matter whether the antecedent is false. What matters is if the consequent is true when/if the antecedent is true. And it seems to me that the premise guarantees that the consequent is true when the antecedent is true, and thus the conditional is indeed true in all cases given the premise - and thus follows from the premise, logically. So I don't think it's "bad grammar and logic" at all. But anyway, this is what we were discussing ever since unenlightened posted the example...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional
X | A | X -> A (conditional)
T | T | T
F | T | T
T | F | F
F | F | T
That third case is the only significant one regarding the possible falsity of the conditional. So given the premise, it seems to me that we are guaranteed not to be in that third case. So in that sense it is a tautology. The conclusion is a restatement of what the premise is already saying. To wit -
1. Everything the Bible says is true
2. Therefore if the Bible says Moses is a basket, then Moses is a basket
If X is "the Bible says Moses is a basket", and we assign true to it, then can A "Moses is a basket" be false, given the premise? If no, then the conditional is certainly true, because those are the only other possibilities - we certainly can't be in that third case given the premise.
So the discussion started by asking for non-tautologous and non-question begging / non-circular single premise arguments. You are free to offer any if you want.
Reply to Michael But there is a problem with them being logically identical:
[i]All men are mortal;
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal[/i]
The conclusion of that is that Socrates is a mortal. Whereas this argument:
[i]All men are mortal
Therefore if Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal[/i]
This argument doesn't tell me whether Socrates is really a mortal, because it doesn't tell me whether he's a man or not. The conclusion is the guaranteed truth of the conditional "if Socrates is a man, then Socrates is a mortal" based on the first premise. I think the guy who answered your question also didn't understand this was the point you are trying to make.
Reply to Michael By the way, a related but not identical query - is Philosophy StackExchange full of progressives? >:O Because other websites like Quora certainly are!
But there is a problem with them being logically identical:
All men are mortal;
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
The conclusion of that is that Socrates is a mortal. Whereas this argument:
All men are mortal
Therefore if Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal
This argument doesn't tell me whether Socrates is really a mortal, because it doesn't tell me whether he's a man or not. The conclusion is the guaranteed truth of the conditional "if Socrates is a man, then Socrates is a mortal" based on the first premise. I think the guy who answered your question also didn't understand this was the point you are trying to make.
The semantics might be a little different but I believe his point is that the form is the same. It's the same reasoning process.
In terms of the actual logic, it doesn't matter if you say 1) "A is B, B is C, therefore A is C" or if you say 2) "if A is B and if B is C then A is C" or if you say 3) "A is B, therefore if B is C then A is C".
So given that 1) isn't tautologous/question-begging, neither are 2) or 3).
In terms of the actual logic, it doesn't matter if you say "A is B, B is C, therefore A is C" or if you say "if A is B and if B is C then A is C" or if you say "A is B, therefore if B is C then A is C".
Yes, I agree the actual reasoning is the same. But the conclusion is certainly different.
This doesn't follow. Their conclusions are different, once again.
So? The conclusions for these two arguments are different:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
All men are immortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is immortal
But given that they use the same reasoning, and given that the reasoning in the first is valid, then the reasoning in the second is valid.
And so in accepting that "the actual reasoning is the same", you must either argue that the standard syllogism is question-begging or that my reformulation isn't question-begging.
And so in accepting that "the actual reasoning is the same", you must either argue that the standard syllogism is question-begging or that my reformulation isn't question-begging
Yes the conclusion of your two arguments is different, but the relationship between premises and conclusion is the same. In the former case, the relationship between premise and conclusion ISN'T the same, to start with merely because the conclusion is a conditional and not just any kind of statement as in your last two examples, and it follows from a single premise, not from two.
This is why I say they have the same logic. Look here:
[i]1. A
2. B
3. If A and B then C
4. Therefore C[/i]
[i]1. Socrates is a man
2. All men are mortal.
3. If Socrates is a man and all men are mortal, then Socrates is mortal.
4. Therefore Socrates is mortal.[/i]
This is identical with:
[i]1. Socrates is a man
2. All men are mortal.
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal.[/i]
Reply to Benkei
I have been following this exchange for two weeks now and I have no idea what you two are in disagreement about.
At first I thought that disagreement was about pointing out an association fallacy.
From your point here Reply to Benkei.
if there exists any x in the set S so that a property ? is true for x, then for all x in S the property ? must be true.
Or...
Premise A is a B
Premise A is also a C
Conclusion Therefore, all Bs are Cs
But now I have no idea what is the problem between you two!?!
The definition of tautology can be extended to sentences in predicate logic, which may contain quantifiers, unlike sentences of propositional logic. In propositional logic, there is no distinction between a tautology and a logically valid formula. In the context of predicate logic, many authors define a tautology to be a sentence that can be obtained by taking a tautology of propositional logic and uniformly replacing each propositional variable by a first-order formula (one formula per propositional variable). The set of such formulas is a proper subset of the set of logically valid sentences of predicate logic (which are the sentences that are true in every model).
But this type of tautology certainly isn't the same as question begging so I am not sure what he is talking about either?!?
But this type of tautology certainly isn't the same as question begging so I am not sure what he is talking about either?!?
I claimed some one premise arguments are question begging, and they are all tautologous in the sense that the conclusion doesn't tell us anything more than what we already know from the one premise.
But now I have no idea what is the problem between you two!?!
I'm not sure what Benkei's disagreement is either to be entirely honest... I've just been busy correcting his misunderstandings of what I've been trying to say so far.
I have been following this exchange for two weeks now and I have no idea what you two are in disagreement about.
At first I thought that disagreement was about pointing out an association fallacy.
From your point here ?Benkei.
Fair enough. My point was that when unenlightened said: "p1. Everything it says in the bible is true.
c1. If it says in the bible that Moses was a basket case, then Moses was a basket case."
That reducing that to:
"A
Therefore A"
is false and tried to illustrate this with the examples I gave. So let me try again because I wasn't speaking about the association fallacy. We also disagreed about the effect of a single premise argument. I don't think unenlightened's "conclusion" is only a conclusion because it also introduces a conditional proposition "if the bible says Moses was a basket case". Rewriting that as a classic syllogism gets me:
If A implies B (Moses was a basket case (A) is in the Bible (B))
and if B implies C (the Bible (B) is always true (C))
then A implies C (Moses was a basket case (A) is always true (C))
Now, this might seem tautological due to the use of the proposition true (C), which is why I replaced it with numbers.
If 2 (A) is divisible by 2 (B)
and if numbers divisible by 2 (B) are even (C)
then 2 (A) is even (C)
I don't see how this can be reduced to "A, therefore A" as proposed by Agustino and although the formula of a syllogism is logically a tautology, it isn't a rhetorical one as Agustino's reduction is.
I don't see how this can be reduced to "A, therefore A" as proposed by Agustino and although the formula of a syllogism is logically a tautology, it isn't a rhetorical one as Agustino's reduction is.
I haven't proposed this :-} please do better than strawmanning
I never reconstructed a 2 premise argument as A therefore A. A single premise argument COULD be of the form A therefore A though. It could also be of the form A therefore B (which is a subset of A).
I'm not straw manning. You're just cherrypicking from my reply to m-theory now.
You reduced this:
"p1. Everything it says in the bible is true.
c1. If it says in the bible that Moses was a basket case, then Moses was a basket case."
to:
"A
Therefore A"
I've explained before why I don't think it matters whether it's a single premise argument in your mind, because it contains two premises. You can deny this but I don't think it's correct. Given that context, you have been reducing two premise arguments to a tautology.
I've explained before why I don't think it matters whether it's a single premise argument in your mind, because it contains two premises. You can deny this but I don't think it's correct. Given that context, you have been reducing two premise arguments to a tautology.
Why do you think that argument is a two premise argument instead of a single premise argument? Do you not think that conditionals can be conclusions? If conditionals can be conclusions, then that is a single premise argument, which is also a valid argument as I've illustrated through the truth table analysis above...
I don't like the far-right parties in Europe like UKIP or Front National - they're not my type of conservatism. Big on anti-immigration, pro-abortion, anti-NATO, pro-Russia, secularist - I don't like any of those. I agree probably on her anti-globalisation and anti-liberalism/progressivism, but that's about it.
Yep. Trump I would've voted as a middle finger to liberalism/progressivism over the entire world - not because I am in love with his policies. I've stated many times that Trump isn't anywhere near my perfect President. If Trump wouldn't have been the underdog with the hawkish liberals everywhere out to get him, I would've been even less likely to want to vote. Voting Trump is just to escape an otherwise inescapable hegemony of liberalism.
So you would cut off your nose to spite your face.
>:O if my face annoyed me enough, sure! But I don't think this is an accurate description of the situation. I have more agreement with Trump than with Le Pen anyway (Trump if more of a social conservative, or at least is surrounded by more social conservatives). Furthermore, Trump winning wasn't harmful to social conservatism - it's much better than Hillary winning. So it is a victory - though indirect.
The underdog in France is Macron. I hope he beats the other two. Although he's not exactly a Corbyn... pro-business and a former investment banker.
I don't hope anything about France, I honestly am not that interested in their elections, because they have no greater meaning. Europe is still very far away from recovering social conservatism - social conservatism isn't even represented in the political sphere, much less winning.
Reply to Agustino It's a phyrric victory. Even by your own standards, there are big losses. The U.S. will have a president which is big on anti-immigration, and is anti-NATO, pro-Russia, and secularist - which you don't like. Not to mention all the other shit.
Reply to Agustino The one where social conservatism would not be such a driving force, where anti-immigration wouldn't be promoted, the one which isn't pro-Russia, takes climate change seriously, supports reasonable reform of lax gun control, strives for greater equality, doesn't support controversial and widely condemned policing methods which unfairly target blacks, creates less dept, where the president-elect doesn't constantly spew out childish comments in a bad-tempered thoughtless reaction... and the list goes on.
The one where social conservatism would not be such a driving force, where anti-immigration wouldn't be promoted, the one which isn't pro-Russia, takes climate change seriously, supports reasonable reform of lax gun control, strives for greater equality, doesn't support controversial and widely condemned policing methods which unfairly target blacks, creates less dept, where the president-elect doesn't constantly spew out childish comments in a bad tempered thoughtless reaction... and the list goes on.
I don't think that was a better alternative FOR social conservatism. The social conservative agenda is simply too important to the point that if the world continues to exist in material prosperity and the social conservative agenda is lost, then everything else is also lost, and not worth anything anymore. Of what use gaining the whole world if you shall lose your soul Sapientia?
The social conservative agenda is simply too important to the point that if the world continues to exist in material prosperity and the social conservative agenda is lost, then everything else is also lost, and not worth anything anymore. Of what use gaining the whole world if you shall lose your soul Sapientia?
But I can't even take that seriously. My initial reaction was that what you just said is laughable, but then it is quite disconcerting that there are many people who share those views. The world would be a better place without those views, or at least if they weren't as widespread as they are.
But I can't even take that seriously. My initial reaction was that what you just said is laughable, but then it is quite disconcerting that there are many people who share those views. The world would be a better place without them.
Well I wouldn't like to live in such a materially prosperous world with 0 social conservatism. I'd go become a monk in that case most likely. All the material prosperity you can imagine couldn't satisfy or replace my desire for social conservatism.
Well I wouldn't like to live in such a materially prosperous world with 0 social conservatism. I'd go become a monk in that case most likely.
>:O
But yes, I agree with the gist of that, although I wouldn't go quite so far. I edited my comment, because I think I went too far, but I didn't edit it in time.
Yes, I edited my comment, because I think I went too far, but I didn't edit it in time.
Yeah - but it is an important issue for many people. Just because you don't see it as important simply means that you have different ideals than those of us who do see it as important. In my opinion, the only reason why I remain in society is because I value the family, and family life. If it wasn't for that, and the intimacy involved, then I'd be outta here! >:O I have no need of anything else that the world has to offer.
Yeah - but it is an important issue for many people. Just because you don't see it as important simply means that you have different ideals than those of us who do see it as important.
Of course, and it works both ways. But there's more to it than that, as I think you'd agree... I could've sworn I saw one of your comments in which you decry relativism.
In my opinion, the only reason why I remain in society is because I value the family, and family life. If it wasn't for that, and the intimacy involved, then I'd be outta here! >:O I have no need of anything else that the world has to offer.
Well, if it was really as lovely and agreeable as that sounds, then it wouldn't be such a controversial issue. Mentioning "family" and "family life" is a bit of a smokescreen, methinks.
Reply to Agustino
So are you saying all tautologies are question begging? Reply to Benkei
Are you making the point that categorical and propositional logic are not the same?
[quote=Zizek]Here, however, one should avoid the fatal trap of conceiving the subject as the act, the gesture, which intervenes afterwards in order to fill in the ontological gap, and insist on the irreducible vicious cycle of subjectivity: “the wound is healed only by the spear which smote it,” that is, the subject “is” the very gap filled in by the gesture of subjectivization (which, in Laclau, establishes a new hegemony; which, in Rancière, gives voice to the “part no part”; which, in Badiou, assumes fidelity to the Truth-Event; etc.). In short, the Lacanian answer to the question asked (and answered in a negative way) by such different philosophers as Althusser, Derrida and Badiou—“Can the gap, the opening, the Void which precedes the gesture of subjectivization, still be called ‘subject’?”—is an emphatic “Yes!”—the subject is both at the same time, the ontological gap (the “night of the world,” the madness of radical self-withdrawal) as well as the gesture of subjectivization which, by means of a short circuit between the Universal and the Particular, heals the wound of this gap (in Lacanese: the gesture of the Master which establishes a “new harmony”). “Subjectivity” is a name for this irreducible circularity, for a power which does not fight an external resisting force (say, the inertia of the given substantial order), but an obstacle that is absolutely inherent, which ultimately “is” the subject itself. In other words the subject’s very endeavor to fill in the gap retroactively sustains and generates this gap.[/quote]
Egad...I'd call that nonsensical, but that would be an insult to nonsense.
Reply to m-theory no, not what I think I'm saying but curious why you take that away from it.
The short version is that a) there is no logical difference between the following:
Everything in the Bible if true.
Therefore, if the Bible says Moses was a basket case, then he was a basket case.
Everything in the Bible is true.
The Bible says Moses was a basket case.
Therefore Moses was a basket case is true.
And b), neither of the above statements are of the form "A, therefore A" which Agustino claimed.
So we have 2 points of disagreement that a) are logically the same (ignoring for a moment that one premise drops the conditionality of "if") and b) that neither are of the form "A, therefore A".
But there's more to it than that, as I think you'd agree... I could've sworn I saw one of your comments in which you decry relativism.
What do you mean? Relativism is only a problem because it's used as a means of subverting social conservatism. So social conservatism is still central. If we were all relativists and socially conservative I'd have no problem - just the same as I'd have no problem if we were all atheists and socially conservative.
Well, if it was really as lovely and agreeable as that sounds, then it wouldn't be such a controversial issue. Mentioning "family" and "family life" is a bit of a smokescreen, methinks.
It's not a smokescreen at all. You can't talk of family or family life when there isn't devotion between husband and wife, and when having children and raising them isn't central. And it is a controversial issue merely because some people are selfish and they don't care about family - they care more about sex, and other material things. Hence you get the situation we have today.
You misunderstand what I meant here... I've repeated this multiple times already.
I could be misunderstanding it but none of your explanations got me to think otherwise. Sometimes communication just breaks down and we won't understand each other and that happens more often on a forum like this than anywhere else. It's precisely why I asked someone to butt in and thankfully m-theory was willing to do so.
Terrapin StationJanuary 19, 2017 at 12:23#481370 likes
Yes, I understand what they believe, meaning the same thing as I understand why they believe this. — Terrapin Station
Lolwut?
Unless we're positing and talking about underlying psychological motivations that the person doesn't explicitly connect with the belief(s) in question, why someone believes something is part of what they believe, no? So if you understand what they believe about x, then you understand why they believe it.
For example:
Murray believes that his car is parked on Main Street, because when he returned home yesterday, he parked on Main Street and he has no reason to believe that anyone moved his car--he was parked in a legal space, no one else has access to his car, etc., and chances are that it's not stolen.
That's all what Murray believes, and it includes why he believes it. Why Murray believes what he does is part of what he believes. "When I returned home yesterday I parked on Main Street," "I was parked in a legal space," etc. are all beliefs, and they're the supporting beliefs for "My car is parked on Main Street." Understanding what he believes includes understanding all of that--otherwise you don't understand what he believes.
Now, if we're wondering about underlying psychological reasons that Murray believes that when he returned home from work yesterday, he parked on Main Street that's another issue. And this is especially pertinent when there is reason to think that Murray doesn't have good reasons to believe what he does, as in that case, some people who are familiar with what Murray believes might not know offhand the underlying psychological reasons simply by understanding what he believes. For example, maybe Murray is actually institutionalized, and he has no job, no car, etc., so that the underlying reasons that Murray believes what he does is that he's highly delusional, etc. For that sort of knowing why someone believes what they do, we need to have more detailed personal information about them, so that we have some clues about their psychological dispositions, quirks, etc. But that's probably not what was meant in the case at hand.
Reply to Thorongil I have read that. I agree with Scruton's sentiments about Zizek. I only agree with Zizek on his anti-democratic anti-liberalism/progressivism attacks.
Well for example the video I posted of him supporting Trump against Hillary. That kind of stuff. Zizek isn't the usual kind of PC leftist. I am obviously not a Zizek leftist, but some of his anti-PC rants are useful - and even some of his overarching ideas (not the Lacan shit :P ) are useful.
I find those sort of truisms suggestive of relativism to be quite annoying. What I mean is that there's more to what we're arguing over than a mere difference of opinion and a difference in valuation. Namely, that one position is superior in some way, and to some degree, when compared with the other; and that one of us is right and the other wrong in certain respects. And obviously I think that I'm right and you're wrong.
So, I think that whether it's "an important issue for many people" and whether there's a "difference of ideals" is rather beside the point and hardly worth mentioning at all. We're also human and live on planet Earth, but that doesn't get the heart of the issue either.
Relativism is only a problem because it's used as a means of subverting social conservatism. So social conservatism is still central.
Ha! That "So" is completely unjustified and illogical. And no, you're wrong: there are many other problems with relativism besides the particular one which, for you, would be ideologically problematic.
I still think that it is, in spite of your denial. This is just another example of what irks me most about you: you lay claim to general terms like "family", "morality" and "virtue", and use them as if they exclusively represent your personal views, values or ethics - which is usually where the real controversy is concealed.
Families come in all shapes and sizes. It isn't just limited to the old concept of the nuclear family, and need not involve marriage, a man and a woman, or children. I can indeed talk about family in this way, because it is meaningful, and because you aren't dictator over my use of language, nor anyone else's for that matter.
The connotations which accompany "family" and "family life" - such as a strong bond between individuals, cooperation, caring for one and other, looking out for each other - are not what your ideological or political opponents are opposing. These are shared values and uncontroversial. Hence my suspicion that your mention of these terms is a bit of smoke screen, concealing something perhaps more sinister, like outdated and prejudiced stereotypes and narrow-mindedness.
Unless we're positing and talking about underlying psychological motivations that the person doesn't explicitly connect with the belief(s) in question, why someone believes something is part of what they believe, no? So if you understand what they believe about x, then you understand why they believe it.
For example:
Murray believes that his car is parked on Main Street, because when he returned home yesterday, he parked on Main Street and he has no reason to believe that anyone moved his car--he was parked in a legal space, no one else has access to his car, etc., and chances are that it's not stolen.
That's all what Murray believes, and it includes why he believes it. Why Murray believes what he does is part of what he believes. "When I returned home yesterday I parked on Main Street," "I was parked in a legal space," etc. are all beliefs, and they're the supporting beliefs for "My car is parked on Main Street." Understanding what he believes includes understanding all of that--otherwise you don't understand what he believes.
Now, if we're wondering about underlying psychological reasons that Murray believes that when he returned home from work yesterday, he parked on Main Street that's another issue. And this is especially pertinent when there is reason to think that Murray doesn't have good reasons to believe what he does, as in that case, some people who are familiar with what Murray believes might not know offhand the underlying psychological reasons simply by understanding what he believes. For example, maybe Murray is actually institutionalized, and he has no job, no car, etc., so that the underlying reasons that Murray believes what he does is that he's highly delusional, etc. For that sort of knowing why someone believes what they do, we need to have more detailed personal information about them, so that we have some clues about their psychological dispositions, quirks, etc. But that's probably not what was meant in the case at hand.
tl;dr
It's quite simple, really, and not worth debating. They simply don't mean the same thing (and this can very easily be demonstrated with a number of examples) just as "black" doesn't mean "white", "yes" doesn't mean "no", and "you're an idiot" doesn't mean "I love you". Hence your lengthy and overcomplicated defence is quite farcical.
Sometimes you should just concede, and this is one of those times. If any of you ever catch me being so obviously wrong, please promptly give me a metaphorical bitch slap.
Namely, that one position is superior in some way, and to some degree, when compared with the other; and that one of us is right and the other wrong in certain respects. And obviously I think that I'm right and you're wrong.
But if one position is superior, what would be your objective criteria for establishing this superiority?
So, I think that whether it's "an important issue for many people" and whether there's a "difference of ideals"
But it is a fact that we have different value judgements. Where the disagreement lies is that you don't yet understand that all ways of life cannot live peacefully together. My ideal society isn't your ideal society, and since we're both trying to activate politically for our ideal societies, there is conflict. You think that somehow your way of life and your ideal of society isn't harmful (I don't use harmful in an objective sense in these sentences because unlike you I will not take the unfair advantage of claiming superiority openly >:) - what I mean by harmful is simply frustrating towards the desires or value judgements of the other - making those values more difficult to instantiate) towards someone like me - and this is precisely where I claim that it IS harmful, and it subjects such a person to a sort of prison. Because this is so, how could the conflict be resolved?
Hence my suspicion that your mention of these terms is a bit of smoke screen, concealing something perhaps more sinister, like outdated and prejudiced stereotypes and narrow-mindedness.
I love the "outdated" and "prejudiced stereotypes" and "narrow-mindedness". Clearly you should try to describe me in terms I'll agree with. Do you think I'll agree with those terms? If I don't, then it's a waste of time. Why not talk about what you really mean lies behind these terms?
Terrapin StationJanuary 19, 2017 at 23:17#482390 likes
It's quite simple, really, and not worth debating. They simply don't mean the same thing (and this can very easily be demonstrated with a number of examples) just as "black" doesn't mean "white", "yes" doesn't mean "no", and "you're an idiot" doesn't mean "I love you". Hence your lengthy and overcomplicated defence is quite farcical.
Sometimes you should just concede, and this is one of those times. If any of you ever catch me being so obviously wrong, please promptly give me a metaphorical bitch slap.
To be entirely honest, I think Zizek is just enjoying his rock-star status today - and he's achieved that precisely by being a leftist (which is popular) but of a different kind - which makes him unique and without competition.
But if one position is superior, what would be your objective criteria for establishing this superiority?
Perhaps I cannot establish it, but that is more or less the [i]point[/I] to a debate such as this; not just to point out differences or point to the number of people who share or do not share a particular view or valuation. Otherwise it seems almost pointless. That's what differentiates debate from conversation.
All I can do is argue my case, but that is very different from providing a mathematical proof.
You think that somehow your way of life and your ideal of society isn't harmful (I don't use harmful in an objective sense in these sentences because unlike you I will not take the unfair advantage of claiming superiority openly >:) - what I mean by harmful is simply frustrating towards the desires or value judgements of the other - making those values more difficult to instantiate) towards someone like me - and this is precisely where I claim that it IS harmful, and it subjects such a person to a sort of prison. Because this is so, how could the conflict be resolved?
It cannot be, realistically. There will likely be such conflict for as long as there are people living in societies where such conflict can and will inevitability occur. But it can be "treated" - reduced by conformity. So it is my hope that you'll somehow see sense and conform goddammit! :D
I love the "outdated" and "prejudiced stereotypes" and "narrow-mindedness". Clearly you should try to describe me in terms I'll agree with. Do you think I'll agree with those terms? If I don't, then it's a waste of time. Why not talk about what you really mean lies behind these terms?
Why should I try to make such a description in terms you'll agree with? I want you to reject this way of thinking on account of its faults. I also want to be honest, and so say what I think, even if you find it disagreeable.
I don't know what you mean about what lies behind those terms. Are you just parroting back my criticism, or do you really want me to attempt to answer that question? Not sure whether or not it's rhetorical.
Perhaps I cannot establish it, but that is more or less the point to a debate such as this; not just to point out differences or point to the number of people who share or do not share a particular view or valuation. Otherwise it seems almost pointless. That's what differentiates debate from conversation.
All I can do is argue my case, but that is very different from providing a mathematical proof.
Then certainly you realise that argument can do little. More important than argument is being aware of the ineradicable conflict that exists. Conversation defines that conflict and points out what exactly is at stake. It clarifies things.
It cannot be, realistically. There will likely be such conflict for as long as there are people living in societies where such conflict can and will inevitability occur. But it can be "treated" - reduced by conformity. So it is my hope that you'll somehow see sense and conform goddammit! :D
>:O If the conflict is unavoidable and inescapable, then the whole notion of "treatment" is nonsense. That's why I think that all that matters is to get in the political arena and fight. Heaven gives and Heaven takes away.
So I did an IQ test and scored much higher than I expected considering I'm quite a bit older last time I took one and the lack of sleep due to having a daughter. I was quite proud.
I then showed it to my wife: "Look, I took an IQ test and this was my score." She looks up to me and sighs: "we already knew you were smart." :’(
I found out that it is better that people don't know that you are smart - people are wary of those who are intelligent, and are at least twice as careful around them. Anyone who can peer into souls is a danger. It is better that they think you an idiot.
Then certainly you realise that argument can do little.
No, not necessarily. A good argument can persuade those who are able to recognise it as such. Whether or not that is significant is arguable, and can be viewed differently from different perspectives and in different contexts. There have been exceptional arguments throughout history that have had a big impact.
More important than argument is being aware of the ineradicable conflict that exists.
Not when those in question are [I]already aware[/I]. In that case, bringing it up would be redundant, and to keep reiterating the point in spite of this would be even more annoying. Yet that is what you're doing.
If the conflict is unavoidable and inescapable, then the whole notion of "treatment" is nonsense. That's why I think that all that matters is to get in the political arena and fight. Heaven gives and Heaven takes away.
I'm not sure you've understood me. No, the notion of "treatment", understood correctly, isn't nonsense. And if it is, then you've just implicated yourself in engaging in it, since you said that we're both trying to activate politically for our ideal societies, which is the sort of thing that I was referring to as a means of "treatment". When activism - which includes argumentation - is successful - which it sometimes is - then it "treats" to some extent the problem in the way of moving towards the ideal society. Each person persuaded to conform to the ideology strengthens the cause and reduces opposition to it.
But it is practically impossible to convince [i]everyone[/I] to conform, so the conflict will likely persist. So any ideological action taken can only ever treat the problem, rather than cure it. And, also, those who [i]do[/I] conform aren't necessarily "cured" either, since it's possible that they'll "relapse".
But its faults are derived by presupposing your own value judgements. How do you suppose I could be convinced by such alchemy?
Alchemy? >:O
I would have to argue that my values are more valuable than yours, and that my judgements are better than yours. But whether or not you'll be convinced isn't entirely within my power. I might have no power over you whatsoever. It's a two way street.
It's not that I find it disagreeable, I just don't identify with your terms in any way.
Well, what does that mean? If you don't won't to associate yourself with those terms, then that is one thing, but whether that are rightly used to describe your view is another. If you dispute the latter, then we can discuss each term that I used in further detail if you want to. I'm willing to defend my use of them.
Well yes, an answer would be better. That way we can talk about them openly instead of talking about proxies such as "outdated" etc.
It's not a proxy, though. I meant what I said. It is outdated, given contemporary views, and given that these views have developed over decades, gained popularity, are widely accepted, and have taken root. Your view is reactionary, harkening back to a bygone era. Perhaps you would've preferred living in the 1950's, although you might not have liked the next decade, or the one after that for that matter. You might view it as a slippery slope, and decry modernity. If you do, then you should just admit to being a reactionary, since it best describes you, and stop treating it like a dirty word (although it kind of is, in my opinion).
No, not necessarily. A good argument can persuade those who are able to recognise it as such. Whether or not that is significant is arguable, and can be viewed differently from different perspectives and in different contexts. There have been exceptional arguments throughout history that have had a big impact.
Arguments don't persuade people regarding value judgements. One starts from some central value judgements and proceeds forward from there. You're doing just the same.
I'm not sure you've understood me. No, the notion of "treatment", understood correctly, isn't nonsense. And if it is, then you've just implicated yourself in engaging in it, since you said that we're both trying to activate politically for our ideal societies, which is the sort of thing that I was referring to as a means of "treatment". When activism - which includes argumentation - is successful - which it sometimes is - then it "treats" to some extent the problem in the way of moving towards the ideal society. Each person persuaded to conform to the ideology strengthens the cause and reduces opposition to it.
But it is practically impossible to convince everyone to conform, so the conflict will likely persist. So any ideological action taken can only ever treat the problem, rather than cure it. And, also, those who do conform aren't necessarily "cured" either, since it's possible that they'll "relapse".
Sure if you want to put it like that, we're both busy trying to "treat" the other :P
Your view is reactionary, harkening back to a bygone era.
Just because my values were better instantiated at certain historical times doesn't mean that they - the values - are outdated. Values are eternal - not subject to being affected by time.
If you do, then you should just admit to being a reactionary, since it best describes you, and stop treating it like a dirty word (although it kind of is, in my opinion).
Reactionary doesn't simply mean to have a set of values that is different than the values to be found today, or that was instantiated at an earlier time. It's a word that politically is associated with certain values, values which i don't happen to share.
Arguments don't persuade people regarding value judgements. One starts from some central value judgements and proceeds forward from there. You're doing just the same.
Yes they do, sometimes. Have you never reevaluated your values or changed your judgement, in part, because of some form of argument that you've read or heard? I have. What was once central has become less so, and that wasn't an isolated personal realisation. It was due, in part, to the effect of the "input". The "output" is my current ideology, based on a reformed set of priorities.
To argue that your values are more valuable than my values is to presuppose your own values. Otherwise how will you argue with regards to value?
Well, you could argue in terms of consequence, for example. Or, as per virtue ethics, in terms of flourishing (which can actually be categoried as a consequence, come to think of it).
Ok. Well you've discriminated against unmarried families, the families of same-sex couples, and childless families. I think that that is indicative of prejudice and narrow-mindedness. They are just as much a family as the nuclear family, which is a stereotype, and which has become outdated and offensive to many, much like the outdated stereotypes about gender roles.
Yes your views are also outdated granted Trump's election and Brexit (Y) - time to conform, and stop clinging to a dying creed.
No, they're certainly not, and that's a crap argument, because Hilary Clinton won the popular vote by over 2 million, and 48% of the electorate voted against Brexit.
Values are eternal - not subject to being affected by time.
That's a load of nonsense. What happened to the value of the slave trade, for example? Or of apartheid? Or of universal suffrage? Or of absolute monarchy? These values changed over time.
Reactionary doesn't simply mean to have a set of values that is different than the values to be found today, or that was instantiated at an earlier time. It's a word that politically is associated with certain values, values which I don't happen to share.
I think I know what a reactionary is, so an explanation by you won't be necessary. What values do you think are entailed, and which you don't think match your own?
Yes they do, sometimes. Have you never reevaluated your values or changed your judgement, in part, because of some form of argument that you've read or heard? I have. What was once central has become less so, and that wasn't an isolated personal realisation. It was due, in part, to the effect of the "input". The "output" is my current ideology, based on a reformed set of priorities.
Sure but those arguments start from the values one already has and advance from there towards a reconsideration and perfection of the entire system of values the person is holding.
Or, as per virtue ethics, in terms of flourishing (which can actually be categoried as a consequence, come to think of it).
No, it actually can't be so categorised. It may be possible that following virtue gets you killed in the world - that isn't an argument not to follow virtue. Flourishing is simply the best state possible given the cards and constraints that you have been dealt - in certain situations, that may very well be death (think Socrates).
Well you've discriminated against unmarried families, the families of same-sex couples, and childless families. I think that that is indicative of prejudice and narrow-mindedness. They are just as much a family as the nuclear family, which is a stereotype, and which has become outdated and offensive to many, much like the outdated stereotypes about gender roles.
Yes I do have a problem with (most) of such arrangements. So why does that make my views outdated? People holding those views are just selfish and want too much from life. The purpose of family is to produce and grow children, and to foster intimacy between husband and wife, and to create a social unit which can act as one. If that wasn't the purpose, we would never have bothered to have families.
No, they're certainly not, and that's a crap argument, because Hilary Clinton won the popular vote by over 2 million, and 48% of the electorate voted against Brexit.
>:O Right - that's why Hillary ain't president, and Brexit actually happened.
What values do you think are entailed, and which you don't think match your own?
A reactionary for example thinks that it is good for men to be promiscuous but bad for women to be promiscuous (as this is how it was actually seen in the past). A progressive (like you, Hanover, etc. thinks that it is good for both to be promiscuous and engage in fornication). I agree with neither - although if I am forced to choose a side, I'll always choose the reactionary, because progressivism is too dangerous - at least the reactionary contains evil within only 50% of the population.
If I was Clinton, I would have faked illness (even if I had to actually injure myself somehow) and not attended the ceremony - what a humiliation, how can she bear it... No dignity - after Trump mocked her she still goes to kiss the little finger >:O
Sure but those arguments start from the values one already has and advance from there towards a reconsideration and perfection of the entire system of values the person is holding.
Yes, my argument is based on preexisting values of mine. But the claim of yours which I was disputing was your claim that arguments don't persuade people regarding value judgements. There are exceptions - meaning they sometimes do.
No, it actually can't be so categorised. It may be possible that following virtue gets you killed in the world - that isn't an argument not to follow virtue. Flourishing is simply the best state possible given the cards and constraints that you have been dealt - in certain situations, that may very well be death (think Socrates).
Yes, it can be, actually. You just haven't understood, I think. Flourishing is a state that occurs, a causal event, a consequence. One flourishes as a result of something.
Your point about virtue getting you killed misses the point. I said that flourishing is a consequence, not that virtue ethics is consequentialism.
This is a political way of government - again not a value.
Yes, congratulations. But those replies indicate to me that you didn't put much effort into understanding what I was getting at. They are not themselves values, but they were all taken to be very valuable in the past, although that then changed significantly over time. The one exception is universal suffrage, the value of which also changed significantly over time, but the valuation moved in the opposite direction to the others.
Point being that the values associated with those things changed, meaning you're wrong about values being eternal. Unless I misinterpreted what you meant by that. Anyway, there isn't much - if anything at all - that one can justifiably say is eternal, so you're probably wrong.
A reactionary for example thinks that it is good for men to be promiscuous but bad for women to be promiscuous (as this is how it was actually seen in the past).
But that isn't [i]entailed[/I] by being a reactionary. That is merely a [i]particular[/I] example of the [i]general[/I] of way in which a reactionary would judge something. The term is about the general, not the particular. If you have a tendency to judge things in that way, then you are a reactionary - even if you don't make or agree with [I]that particular[/I] judgement.
A progressive (like you, Hanover, etc. thinks that it is good for both to be promiscuous and engage in fornication).
Again, that isn't essential to progressivism. If we were to determine whether or not I am a progressive, that would be a bad way of going about it, since I might well be a hardline conservative, and that might be the one exception.
So, these examples fail to rule out "reactionary" as being a fair description of you in light of your general way of judging.
I agree with neither - although if I am forced to choose a side, I'll always choose the reactionary, because progressivism is too dangerous - at least the reactionary contains evil within only 50% of the population.
You must have a pessimistic view of the way in which society has progressed over time, then. That is something I find hard to relate to. I could list countless advancements and reforms that have been of considerable benefit. We are a much fairer, more equal, and more liberal society today than, say, fifty years ago; and especially if you go back one hundred or more years. And we are much better off as a result.
Yes, my argument is based on preexisting values of mine. But the claim of yours which I was disputing was your claim that arguments don't persuade people regarding value judgements. There are exceptions - meaning they sometimes do.
Arguments which are based on value judgements people do not share cannot convince them, this is what I was trying to convey. If you want to convince someone you have to start from their presuppositions.
Point being that the values associated with those things changed, meaning you're wrong about values being eternal. Unless I misinterpreted what you meant by that.
They are eternal in the sense that they remain potential values which will be re-adopted at one point or another. The values of a peoples keeps fluctuating through history. In addition to this they are eternal because they are logical expressions of ways of life.
But that isn't entailed by being a reactionary. That is merely a particular example of the general of way in which a reactionary would judge something. The term is about the general, not the particular. If you have a tendency to judge things in that way, then you are a reactionary - even if you don't make or agree with that particular judgement.
I am a reactionary if I fit in with other reactionaries it seems to me. I've discussed with these people and I have less commonalities and more differences with them. I don't fit in with them.
So, these examples fail to rule out "reactionary" as being a fair description of you in light of your general way of judging.
What about my general way of judging is reactionary? I don't argue we should go back to the past because the past was better. Indeed, I make no appellation to the past. I just say how things should be now.
You must have a pessimistic view of the way in which society has progressed over time, then.
I don't think there is such a thing as progress (in terms of morals at a society level). History is an up and down cycle. These "progressive" values that you note today have existed in the past (in different shapes and forms of course, not exactly like today), for example in, surprisingly, the Islamic Caliphate at its peak, when Baghdad was the center of learning of the world. I think societies fluctuate in what they consider moral and immoral and will keep fluctuating like this for all of history. I don't view it as a trend. For example some people today live worse than people have ever lived in the history of mankind - think Syria.
I could list countless advancements and reforms that have been of considerable benefit.
And I agree with a lot of them - but I don't take that as progress, because history is not directed towards producing it. It's just a series of temporary events which will pass.
Reply to Sapientia
But either way, I don't think you're the first man in history who has thought that his society is the most advanced that has ever been. Indeed this has been a common thought for most people who have ever lived. That alone makes it suspicious - we tend to be biased towards what is familiar.
If the United States enters into a trade war with China, it will lose. It will fade into economic obscurity much as Britain has since the first War. Economic leadership will pass to China and India, with Brazil and Indonesia following on.
It will continue to look backwards to times of glory, and to blame liberalisation for its problems; it will continue its fall to the fourteen characteristics of Eco's Ur-Facism. It is too involved in its own myth of individualism, hard work and guns to vote for a better social agenda such as Sanders proposes.
If the United States enters into a trade war with China, it will lose. It will fade into economic obscurity much as Britain has since the first War. Economic leadership will pass to China and India, with Brazil and Indonesia following on.
US is pretty much already dead after Obama man. Trump can't do miracles, even though he's probably America's best bet. China ALREADY has economic leadership - biggest economy by GDP and growing at 6-8%/annum compared to US at 1-3%. There's no chance that America can keep up. China is strategically much better than the West - even if you look through history, you will see that by GDP, China has dominated most of history.
At its current rate of growth, if the US doesn't do something major, in 20 years China will be 2 times as big as the US by GDP.
Russia and the US have been fighting, while China has been heeding their own wisdom:
"The mantis stalks the cicada unaware of the oriole behind it" ;)
Another chinese proverb... "why are the soles of one's feet paler than their face? Because they always keep them hidden" - China has always had huge ambitions, but unlike America it stays low (knows that if you want to rule the world, you have to wait for the stars to align), and therefore always comes out on top, because no one expects it.
Arguments which are based on value judgements people do not share cannot convince them, this is what I was trying to convey. If you want to convince someone you have to start from their presuppositions.
With all due respect, what on earth are you going on about? Never mind, I just don't care, to be honest.
Virtue is its own reward, and as such the reward isn't a consequence of virtue, but virtue itself.
Well, I completely disagree, because that makes no sense. If you should be virtuous, then you should be virtuous [i]for a reason[/I], and that reason would be along lines of the Aristotelian concept of flourishing. You should be virtuous [i]because[/I] you will excel, thrive, become a better person... [i]as a result[/I].
I am a reactionary if I fit in with other reactionaries it seems to me. I've discussed with these people and I have less commonalities and more differences with them. I don't fit in with them.
That's not as precise a method as the one that I described. Perhaps you're comparing yourself to people further away from you on the political spectrum, or whose particular views differ from your own, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you're not a reactionary: which, again, is about a [i]certain way of judging things[/I]. If you generally judge things in that way, then you're a reactionary. No ifs, no buts.
What about my general way of judging is reactionary? I don't argue we should go back to the past because the past was better. Indeed, I make no appellation to the past. I just say how things should be now.
It isn't always explicit. But, for example, your views about marriage and family were more dominant and widely accepted in the past than they are today. So saying that things should be this way now suggests a desire to fashion the present in the manner of the past. And that is reactionary.
I don't think there is such a thing as progress (in terms of morals at a society level). History is an up and down cycle. These "progressive" values that you note today have existed in the past (in different shapes and forms of course, not exactly like today), for example in, surprisingly, the Islamic Caliphate at its peak, when Baghdad was the center of learning of the world. I think societies fluctuate in what they consider moral and immoral and will keep fluctuating like this for all of history. I don't view it as a trend. For example some people today live worse than people have ever lived in the history of mankind - think Syria.
Yes, it can and does go up and down, but that doesn't mean that there aren't trends - there clearly are. There's no need to throw context out the window, either - no need to speak about "all of history" or on a global scale. British society has very clearly progressed over time in many respects. Or do you think that we haven't progressed all that much, if at all, since the dark ages? Now that would be ludicrous.
And I agree with a lot of them - but I don't take that as progress, because history is not directed towards producing it. It's just a series of temporary events which will pass.
History doesn't need to be directed [i]at all[/I] in order for progress to take place, nor to observe it and make note of it. Nor does it need be eternal. Where are getting these ideas from? Certainly not from me. And on what are they based - fantasy or reality?
Sanders is a fool though - he doesn't understand Real Politik.
— Agustino
If you are called a fool by a fool, isn't that more like a compliment?
Perhaps we could just call him a loser, and note as an aside that there is no virtue in winning without virtue. If bad policies are popular, and good policies unpopular, will you support bad policies and call it clever?
Well, I completely disagree, because that makes no sense. If you should be virtuous, then you should be virtuous for a reason, and that reason would be along lines of the Aristotelian concept of flourishing. You should be virtuous because you will excel, thrive, become a better person... as a result.
"Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; nor do we enjoy it because we restrain our lusts; on the contrary, because we enjoy it, we are able to restrain them" - Benedict de Spinoza
With all due respect, what on earth are you going on about? Never mind, I just don't care, to be honest.
Have you read Hegel's Phenomenology? What method does Hegel use? Starting with the assumptions of non-philosophical man and showing how they collapse into the assumptions of philosophy. If you don't start from a common point there's no way to convince someone.
But, for example, your views about marriage and family were more dominant and widely accepted in the past than they are today. So saying that things should be this way now suggests a desire to fashion the present in the manner of the past. And that is reactionary.
If they had never happened in the past, do you think i would never have adopted such views? For me, it's not primarily about the past - it's about what makes sense and what is right. I don't suggest adopting such views because they were our past, but because I think they're right.
If you are called a fool by a fool, isn't that more like a compliment?
It's a true fact. There's many people like him but they can't last in the world of politics - it's just the way things are - they are almost guaranteed to never win. Saying that they are "good" is fooling yourself, since a society cannot live by the values advocated by such people who eschew the hard virtues and favour only an all-extending benevolence. Yes, an all extendend benevolence is good - in theory. In practice, all extended benevolence just leads to social chaos, and the fragmentation of society. Look for example at out of wedlock birth-rate in the US. What's Bernie gonna do about the morals of the people? Nothing! He's just gonna make it easier for them to have children out of wedlock. Sounds like the perfect solution to me. :-}
"Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; nor do we enjoy it because we restrain our lusts; on the contrary, because we enjoy it, we are able to restrain them" - Benedict de Spinoza
Are the virtuous, or the blessed in particular, better than the non-virtuous, or the non-blessed?
Starting with the assumptions of non-philosophical man and showing how they collapse into the assumptions of philosophy. If you don't start from a common point there's no way to convince someone.
Okie dokie. Only we've digressed so far from the original point that I've almost forgotten what the relevance of any of this is supposed to be. I just about remember: you claimed that no argument can change one's values, but that is proved false by the fact that it has happened to me. So there's no point arguing against that, since nothing you can say can change that. And your recent comments seem to bear no relation to our original point of disagreement, anyway.
What's that way of judging things? You should define this.
I already have, as have you, effectively. So that shouldn't be necessary. I spoke of a desire to fashion the present in the manner of the past, and before that, you yourself provided an example of the sort of judgement that is characteristic of a reactionary.
Doesn't need to be. In fact, that is probably true of most reactionaries (yourself included :P ). What matters primarily is likely going to be the subject matter itself.
So? If, in general, that happens to be how things were in the past, and you want to change the present in this way, then you're a reactionary. How many times do I have to reiterate this point? It's simple enough.
I don't suggest adopting such views because they were our past, but because I think they're right.
As do most others, including reactionaries. But that is beside the point. It would make no sense if it were otherwise. It would be quite unreasonable to want to adopt past views whilst believing them to be no good. I am generally critical of reactionary views, but I am not uncharitable enough to think so little of the people who think along reactionary lines.
Yes, so what? That they can be reversed obviously doesn't entail that they ever will, and some changes are [i]very[/I] unlikely to be reversed. So to think that they inevitably will be is unreasonable.
Begging the question - that's exactly what you're trying to prove.
What? That you're fooling yourself? Or that we are a much fairer, more equal, and more liberal society today than, say, fifty years ago? Because the two are not equivalent. Or perhaps both? Anyway, clearly I wasn't trying to prove anything of the sort. I only went so far as to assert these things.
Sanders is a fool though - he doesn't understand Real Politik.
Realpolitik is the day-to-day of political decision making, as opposed to the ideology and ethics behind it. Given the time he has spent as a senator, I think it safe to assume Sanders has some idea of how it works.
But Sanders is out to change moral and ethical premises; his fight is with the myth of trickle-down economics, to which Trump still adheres.
The fools are those who think that the situation will change if we give the leadership of the country to those who benefitted most from the myth.
Already have, as have you, so that shouldn't be necessary. I spoke of a desire to fashion the present in the manner of the past, and before that, you yourself provided an example of the sort of judgement that is characteristic of a reactionary.
I don't desire to fashion the present in the manner of the past... :s Where do you get that from?
So? If that happens to generally be how things were in the past, and you want to change the present in this way, then you're a reactionary.
As I have said before, you cannot claim this. If you claim this nonsense I will say that you also are a reactionary, because you want our world to become like Baghdad at the height of the Islamic Caliphate... Your values have also existed in the world before. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.
It would be quite unreasonable to want to adopt past views whilst believing them to be no good
Actually, reactionaries quite often want to adopt past views, based on no reason at all - in fact they decry rationalism, and say that reason itself is the problem - see for example De Maistre or Cortes (who are reactionaries). So again, you don't know what you're talking about, you're just throwing ideological shit. I don't adopt such an attitude.
But Sanders is out to change moral and ethical premises; his fight is with the myth of trickle-down economics, to which Trump still adheres.
I have no problem with his fight against trickle-down economics. In fact I support that. If you check my profile in the uploads section you'll see that I'm a kind of socialist. My problem with Sanders is his take on morality - that, and not his economics, is why I would never vote for him.
The fools are those who think that the situation will change if we give the leadership of the country to those who benefitted most from the myth.
America to survive as a country doesn't need that its people are happy and live good lives with an equitable distribution of resources. The Chinese aren't happy and don't live good lives - at least most of them haven't until now. They've been working very hard and suffering immensely. I'm just saying this to point to the fact that America's national interests diverge from the interests of its people at this juncture.
The shouts in here are long enough to make one hoarse.
Yes, but despite the risk of losing my voice, I like that we have the room in here to have lengthier shouts. It enables me to have discussions of a more serious nature, yet I have the freedom to apply a much less rigorous standard if I so desire. So I can almost be as lazy or facetious as I like, as opposed to being slightly less so elsewhere on the forum.
Reply to Sapientia I have not read your conversation with Agustino - it does not look particularly appetising. But I guess so long as you are having fun and don't hurt yourself...
OK, so what you think realpolitik is, diverges from what I think it is.
So tell me what realpolitik is. It might help me understand how you can accuse Sanders of not being able in that area.
Actually, I think realpolitik is an attitude where pragmatism TRUMPs ideology :D
Now I don't mean that one doesn't have an ideology - but rather that one is aware that victory in politics doesn't depend on what one's ideology is, so much as it depends on political tactics and strategy. To know realpolitik is to know that in politics anything goes. Sanders can, and often was, hit under the waist - it seems that he doesn't know and understand realpolitik. He's a very perseverant man though, who believes in the ideas he's fighting for, hence his current moderate success.
I don't desire to fashion the present in the manner of the past... :s Where do you get that from?
From your views on marriage, family, and sex, for example. I already brought up those first two in answer to more or less the same question. Do you ever feel like you're going around in circles? It's like a failed dialectic in which we're going back and forth between the first two stages without making any progress.
Yes it does - by definition I need to desire to fashion the present in the manner of the past to be a reactionary.
Yes, by definition, you need to desire to fashion the present in the manner of the past to be a reactionary. But that wasn't what I disputed, was it? You can go back and check if need be.
If you claim this nonsense I will say that you also are a reactionary, because you want our world to become like Baghdad at the height of the Islamic Caliphate...
What I claimed isn't nonsense. And you don't really seem to have taken into account my point about context. If you alter the context, then you're moving the goal posts. But sure, I wouldn't have a problem with that, if it is both correct and suitably qualified, then I am a reactionary in at least that respect. But it doesn't strike me as correct, because you'd have to disregard the context of my position in place of your own.
Your values have also existed in the world before. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.
I never denied it, but focusing on that misses the point. In the relevant context, my views on the issues we've been discussing are better described as contemporary and as corresponding with a trend which has become more dominant over time, whereas yours are not better described in that way - quite the contrary.
Actually, reactionaries quite often want to adopt past views, based on no reason at all - in fact they decry rationalism, and say that reason itself is the problem - see for example De Maistre or Cortes (who are reactionaries). So again, you don't know what you're talking about, you're just throwing ideological shit. I don't adopt such an attitude.
I will look into those two when I have the time and the inclination. But for now, I'll take that with a pinch of salt and note that two examples isn't sufficient to support your claims about reactionaries in general or how frequently they do what you allege.
Well you may be right and it may have one, but its ideology is certainly not aimed at producing or leading to any kind of particular politics - rather its ideology is victory for victory's sake.
What it does next has nothing to do with pragmatism - it depends on what its ideology is. What it rules out is an ideology which cannot be implemented on pragmatic grounds.
Interesting reply, but I disagree. It's implicit in the concept of virtue. Otherwise why strive for virtue? It isn't to be more powerful.
We are conditioned by our nature to strive for power (which is the same as freedom). I buy into Spinoza's conatus. So I don't choose to strive for it - rather it chooses me. I would have to be deranged to choose vice - that would be like pouring poison down my own throat.
From your views on marriage, family, and sex, for example. I already brought up those first two in answer to more or less the same question.
Okay but my views on marriage, family and sex aren't sufficient to qualify me as a reactionary. There's other, more important criteria at play. Such as what I think about reason for one, and the role I allocate to reason and rationality in determining what the future should be.
I will look into those two when I have to time and the inclination. But for now, I'll take that with a pinch of salt and note that two examples isn't sufficient to support your claims about reactionaries in general or how frequently they do what you say of them.
:s Well there aren't even that many reactionary thinkers to begin with. But fine - look at those thinkers and you'll see their anti-reason stand. De Maistre for example took Enlightenment rationalism to be responsible for the French Revolution and wanted a return to Papal and King rule - what he called "throne and altar". From here:
Although modern historians trace the causes of the Revolution to a variety of factors, the same cannot be said for the immediate post-Revolution reactionaries in France, who were more or less in agreement about whom to blame for the 1789 dissolution of the ancién regime. The Revolution was in their view the logical outcome of giving free rein to subversive anticlerical forces: it was a devious conspiracy of atheists, Protestants, Jansenists, Freemasons, Illuminati and, most of all, the irreverent lumiéres who had dared to subject tradition and authority to the criticism of reason. Writers such as the theologian Bonald, and Augustin Barruel, with his bestselling Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism, poured scorn and invective upon the French philosophes, whom they held accountable for dissolving the basis of order and authority with their critical philosophy and deification of reason. By defying God, monarchy and tradition with their zealous anti-Christian propaganda, the philosophes and their disciples had allegedly undermined the foundations of civilized society and replaced it with a godless anarchy culminating in the blood-drenched guillotines of Robespierre's Terror. According to this widespread reactionary view, the Revolution was a man-made blunder -- the logical consequence of permitting the spread of Enlightenment ideas.
Unlike most of the reactionary writers in the immediate post-revolutionary period, Maistre was not content with mere outraged invective. In his view, the Revolution and the Terror was the work of Divine Providence, a punishment meted out to man for the insolence and pride of the misguided and heretical new philosophy. Its roots were intellectual and ideological -- "books did it all."
It is too involved in its own myth of individualism, hard work and guns to vote for a better social agenda such as Sanders proposes.
It did so in the two previous elections, but not quite as Sanders proposes, and it didn't quite work out. The failure is to some extent systemic. The system itself is perhaps in need of reform. That in combination with the right kind of candidate could do some good. We need more candidates like Sanders. Much of what Clinton said was right, but she was stigmatised from the get go. Anti-establishmentarianism seems to be what's trendy these days, which isn't in itself a bad thing, in my opinion; it's just that it has benefited the wrong people.
Reply to Agustino So you are saying that Sanders is not machiavellian enough to replace the machiavellian establishment, but Trump is machiavellian enough to replace the machiavellian establishment?
So you are saying that Sanders is not machiavellian enough to replace the machiavellian establishment, but Trump is machiavellian enough to replace the machiavellian establishment?
The problem isn't that the establishment is machiavellian - indeed the establishment must be machiavellian otherwise it cannot be the establishment. The problem is that the establishment has no ideology - it is pure pragmatism with no ideology, all talk no action as DJT says. It does what it's necessary to win (the talking) but then doesn't act (it lacks ideology).
Sanders isn't machiavellian enough to win. He has ideology, but what good will it do him?
So you are saying that Sanders is not machiavellian enough to replace the machiavellian establishment, but Trump is machiavellian enough to replace the machiavellian establishment?
:D
Thus forming the new machiavellian establishment: like the old one, but worse.
Reply to Sapientia Not to mention that my views on marriage, family, etc. aren't even those of the past. For example, I don't think that two people need to be married by a Church to really be married. I think their devotion to each other, and their spiritual bond is what real marriage consists in, and no earthly authority can decide this. So you'd be dead wrong if you thought my conservatism is "throne-and-altar" conservatism. I've re-appropriated, and re-evaluated old values - they aren't the same anymore in this sense. Furthermore, my conservatism is based on reason - reason is a central part of it. To the contrary, it's not reason that has led to the loss of those values, but irrationality - that is my thesis.
My invectives are all really around the cultural condemnation of sexual sins. That's what I'm really demanding for. And think for example how I conceive of sex. I don't conceive of it as being just for procreation (which would be the typical view of the past). I conceive of it as being primarily a spiritual act aimed at intimacy. I condemn the misuse of sex precisely because it destroys intimacy. So all my views, while bearing resemblances to views you would find at different times in human history, are updated and renewed. Most Catholics would take my view of sex as heretical for example - maybe Von Hildebrand wouldn't, but he's the lone exception. To be honest, the views I'm voicing are quite original - you find very few people holding them, either today or in the past. In fact, I've found no philosopher EVER having those exact same views on sex that I have. Von Hildebrand is close, but I haven't read him much.
So Sanders has an ideology, but is not machiavellian enough to win, while Trump is machiavellian enough to win, but being a pragmatist has no ideology.
So Sanders has an ideology, but is not machiavellian enough to win, while Trump is machiavellian enough to win, but being a pragmatist has no ideology.
No I didn't say that. I said Trump has an ideology but is pragmatic. Sanders has an ideology as well, but isn't pragmatic.
What it does next has nothing to do with pragmatism - it depends on what its ideology is. What it rules out is an ideology which cannot be implemented on pragmatic grounds.
@Banno - I've specified here that a pragmatist CAN have an ideology, in which case his ideology would determine what gets done after he wins.
Not so much, politics usually works like that to one degree or another. It's more that our politics has become severed from the identity of many people. The practicality of power has overtaken ideology and identity, whether as pretence or actual. Political identity has become severed from economics and the day-to-day life of enough people.
In the neoliberal environment, there's no identity tied to the economic of communal functioning of society. Any aspects of identity bound up with those ideas (e.g. racism, nationalism, workers rights, sexual morality, division of property, etc.) get separated out into their own individual social issues. Whether you are a "social conservative" (e.g. Agustino) or "social progressive (e.g. me)," you are understood to be fighting for your own particular social interests, rather than talking about values and behaviour bound-up with the social and economic function of the community.
The classical liberals like to blame "post truth" on postmodernism, as if ignoring the differences between people and their subjectivities would amount to respect for "truth," but the the culprit is really neo-liberalism. When economics become severed for identity, politics loses bite.
To make America - as a country - strong, both economically and militarily. Notice that nowhere is there something about the people there. As I said, the roads diverge - what is good for America isn't good for the people (simply because the people cannot accept the harsh reality - you'll never see the American people being willing to slave away like the Chinese - they're too well-fed for that).
I have no problem with his fight against trickle-down economics. In fact I support that. If you check my profile in the uploads section you'll see that I'm a kind of socialist. My problem with Sanders is his take on morality - that, and not his economics, is why I would never vote for him.
The kind of socialist with the wrong priorities. The economics and the morality are connected, and the morality of his economics far outweighs that of your petty fixation on sex.
In the neoliberal environment, there's no identity tied to the economic of communal functioning of society. Any aspects of identity bound up with those ideas (e.g. racism, nationalism, workers rights, sexual morality, division of property, etc.) get separated out into their own individual social issues. Whether you are a "social conservative" (e.g. Agustino) or "social progressive (e.g. me)," you are understood to be fighting for your own particular social interests, rather than talking about values and behaviour bound-up with the social and economic function of the community.
But this is the case. For example both you and I (I suppose) are socialists. But we differ on morality, even though we agree on economics.
I have not read your conversation with Agustino - it does not look particularly appetising. But I guess so long as you are having fun and don't hurt yourself...
X-)
Well, it wasn't catered to appeal to your tastes, whatever they may be. Perhaps you'd prefer something even more tasteless, like the dry analytic philosophy you seem keen to dine on. ;)
Well, it wasn't catered to appeal to your tastes, whatever they may be. Perhaps you'd prefer something even more tasteless, like the dry analytic philosophy you seem keen to dine on. ;)
>:O
TheWillowOfDarknessJanuary 21, 2017 at 23:41#486460 likes
If you are thinking in terms of the neo-liberalist individualist consumer, sure. People don't have to think this way though. One may think communally and economically as well, such that social identity is bound-up with what is understood to deliver functioning community, rather than being some flippant conflict of personal desires. The point is not the social issues don't have distinction from economic ones, rather that they don't belong to separate worlds.
If you are thinking in terms of the neo-liberalist individualist consumer, sure. People don't have to think this way though. One may think communally and economically as well, such that social identity is bound-up with what is understood to deliver functioning community, rather than being some flippant conflict of personal desires. The point is not the social issues don't have distinction from economic ones, rather that they don't belong to separate worlds.
So Sanders is a hopeless idealist because he thinks the US should have a common wealth of universal health coverage, education and support for the poor, of the sort enjoyed throughout Europe, Britain, Canada, Australia and other developed nations; that it is impractical for the USA to treat its citizens with common decency.
You elevate a slogan to an ideology, placing patriotism before respect for the individuals who make up your nation.
You seek to remove the 'elite' by electing to both the houses and the administration.
And somehow this is a christian socialist approach?
We are conditioned by our nature to strive for power (which is the same as freedom). I buy into Spinoza's conatus. So I don't choose to strive for it - rather it chooses me. I would have to be deranged to choose vice - that would be like pouring poison down my own throat.
Then you're an exception. People strive for virtue in order to be a better person, not because of an impulse towards gaining power. And what you say now makes even less sense, since power has a tendency to corrupt, and that corruption is indicative of vice. Typically, those who are motivated by vice tend to seek power, and those who are motivated by virtue tend to be more modest - merely seeking self-betterment.
There's other, more important criteria at play. Such as what I think about reason for one, and the role I allocate to reason and rationality in determining what the future should be.
We have divergent understandings of what it means to be a reactionary, and you're presupposing your own.
:s Well there aren't even that many reactionary thinkers to begin with. But fine - look at those thinkers and you'll see their anti-reason stand. De Maistre for example took Enlightenment rationalism to be responsible for the French Revolution and wanted a return to Papal and King rule - what he called "throne and altar". From here:
Although modern historians trace the causes of the Revolution to a variety of factors, the same cannot be said for the immediate post-Revolution reactionaries in France, who were more or less in agreement about whom to blame for the 1789 dissolution of the ancién regime. The Revolution was in their view the logical outcome of giving free rein to subversive anticlerical forces: it was a devious conspiracy of atheists, Protestants, Jansenists, Freemasons, Illuminati and, most of all, the irreverent lumiéres who had dared to subject tradition and authority to the criticism of reason. Writers such as the theologian Bonald, and Augustin Barruel, with his bestselling Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism, poured scorn and invective upon the French philosophes, whom they held accountable for dissolving the basis of order and authority with their critical philosophy and deification of reason. By defying God, monarchy and tradition with their zealous anti-Christian propaganda, the philosophes and their disciples had allegedly undermined the foundations of civilized society and replaced it with a godless anarchy culminating in the blood-drenched guillotines of Robespierre's Terror. According to this widespread reactionary view, the Revolution was a man-made blunder -- the logical consequence of permitting the spread of Enlightenment ideas.
Unlike most of the reactionary writers in the immediate post-revolutionary period, Maistre was not content with mere outraged invective. In his view, the Revolution and the Terror was the work of Divine Providence, a punishment meted out to man for the insolence and pride of the misguided and heretical new philosophy. Its roots were intellectual and ideological -- "books did it all."
Ok, yes, that's actually a good point. Thanks for the quote. Tradition tends to take pride of place. But isn't that the case for you also, to a large extent? I guess the difference is that you [I]think [/I] that you're being reasonable. :D
And somehow this is a christian socialist approach?
I didn't say Trump is a Christian socialist did I? I said Trump is better than Bernie as a choice out of the possibilities that were there. At least he gets more of the Christian bit right - what use getting the socialism bit right if you don't get the Christian bit right? I mean shall you gain the world and lose your soul? Nah
So Sanders is a hopeless idealist because he thinks the US should have a common wealth of universal health coverage, education and support for the poor, of the sort enjoyed throughout Europe, Britain, Canada, Australia and other developed nations
And? You think Europe, Britain, Canada, Australia are going to dominate the world for the next 200 years? Nope. Nations rise and fall, and these nations you're mentioning are too focused on human well-being and therefore cannot compete with China who doesn't care so much about human well-being, because its people are disciplined and hard-working, willing to accept hard conditions as natural. The people of Europe and the US are getting too comfortable and hedonistic - such is what happens before nations fall.
You elevate a slogan to an ideology, placing patriotism before respect for the individuals who make up your nation.
No I don't, first of all Trump does this, and it makes sense, for America. Well-being isn't the only relevant thing in RealPolitik - more important than well-being is longevity and dominating your environment. This does require discipline and a certain degree of asceticism.
Then you're an exception. People strive for virtue in order to be a better person, not because of an impulse towards gaining power. And what you say now makes even less sense, since power has a tendency to corrupts, and that corruption is indicative of vice.
You don't understand the meaning of power as Spinoza talks about it. To be free is to have power. Furthermore power is a communal activity, since your own power depends on your community. So if you destroy your community, you are actually destroying yourself.
Ok, yes, that's actually a good point. Thanks for the quote. Tradition tends to take pride of place. But isn't that the case for you also, to a large extent? I guess the difference is that you think that you're being reasonable. :D
:-d I just showed in this post that my morality is not traditional and would in fact be considered heretical by tradition...
?Sapientia Not to mention that my views on marriage, family, etc. aren't even those of the past. For example, I don't think that two people need to be married by a Church to really be married. I think their devotion to each other, and their spiritual bond is what real marriage consists in, and no earthly authority can decide this. So you'd be dead wrong if you thought my conservatism is "throne-and-altar" conservatism. I've re-appropriated, and re-evaluated old values - they aren't the same anymore in this sense. Furthermore, my conservatism is based on reason - reason is a central part of it. To the contrary, it's not reason that has led to the loss of those values, but irrationality - that is my thesis.
My invectives are all really around the cultural condemnation of sexual sins. That's what I'm really demanding for. And think for example how I conceive of sex. I don't conceive of it as being just for procreation (which would be the typical view of the past). I conceive of it as being primarily a spiritual act aimed at intimacy. I condemn the misuse of sex precisely because it destroys intimacy. So all my views, while bearing resemblances to views you would find at different times in human history, are updated and renewed. Most Catholics would take my view of sex as heretical for example - maybe Von Hildebrand wouldn't, but he's the lone exception. To be honest, the views I'm voicing are quite original - you find very few people holding them, either today or in the past. In fact, I've found no philosopher EVER having those exact same views on sex that I have. Von Hildebrand is close, but I haven't read him much.
Yes my views are conservative, that's for sure. But reactionary isn't the same as conservative. Neither do I belong to the Burkean/Humean anti-reason, prudence and tradition-based conservatism. I belong to rational conservatism. From here:
It is contested both what conservatism is, and what it could or ought to be—both among the public and politicians, and among the philosophers and political theorists that this article inevitably focuses on. Popularly, “conservative” is often a generic term for “right-wing viewpoint occupying the political spectrum between liberalism and fascism”. Philosophical commentators offer a more distinctive characterisation. Many treat it as a standpoint that is sceptical of abstract reasoning in politics, and that appeals instead to living tradition, allowing for the possibility of limited political reform. On this view, conservatism is neither dogmatic reaction, nor the right-wing radicalism of Margaret Thatcher or contemporary American “neo-conservatives”. Other commentators, however, contrast this “pragmatic conservatism” with a universalist “rational conservatism” that is not sceptical of reason, and that regards a community with a hierarchy of authority as most conducive to human well-being (Skorupski 2015).
TheWillowOfDarknessJanuary 22, 2017 at 00:06#486560 likes
Sapientia:Then you're an exception. People strive for virtue in order to be a better person, not because of an impulse towards gaining power. And what you say now makes even less sense, since power has a tendency to corrupt, and that corruption is indicative of vice. Typically, those who are motivated by vice tend to seek power, and those who are motivated by virtue tend to be more humble and merely seek self-betterment.
I think you misunderstand. One does not seek virtue. They act virtuously. Under these ethics, there is no striving or a conflict of vice because there is no temptation to be anything other than virtuous. One understands themselves and their well-being (within the context of the community), so the conflict of pursing one's desires or becoming virtuous doesn't arise.
You don't understand the meaning of power as Spinoza talks about it. To be free is to have power.
Perhaps not. I haven't delved particularly deep into the thought of Spinoza. There might well be some value beyond his ridiculous theology, which is only of [i]historical[/I] value due to it's novelty. I've read better things about his ethics and political philosophy, and am quite interested in what he thought about power - it was of significance to Nietzsche, for one thing, and earned his admiration.
I don't think that two people need to be married by a Church to really be married. I think their devotion to each other, and their spiritual bond is what real marriage consists in, and no earthly authority can decide this.
Yes, well, your use of that term is problematic, because I instinctively conceive of it and use it in the ordinary way, as do others, so you're probably going to encounter this problem on a frequent basis. :-}
Reply to Agustino Well, that was fun. Perhaps we have reached an impasse such that we differ on basic values. Dominating the world is no more than a fetish. Nor are your views of China and Europe anything more than vague stereotypes.
A form of christianity that puts nationalism above charity strikes me as quite self contradictory. Indeed, I cannot comprehend how Trump is apparently thought of as virtuous in christian terms.
This conversation has reinforced for me the unpleasant parallel between the present state of US politics and Ur-facism: the cult of tradition, the rejection of rationality, the call for action for action's sake, disagreement is treason, fear of difference, the appeal to middle-class frustration, the privilege of one's country of birth, contrived humiliation by the enemy, contempt for the weak, mythologising the hero, machoism, the pretence of the common will of the people, newspeak - Eco called them all, and all are now in place in the supposed land of the free.
In politics you have to be machiavellian, otherwise you don't survive, and even if you do, you'll never win big.
Yes, to some extent, you're probably right. But some go too far. There was a poll last year about what traits people want in a leader, and honesty and integrity came out on top and stood out from the rest. That explains to some extent the backlash against the establishment - people compare words and actions, and lose trust when there is a mismatch. There is also evidence that there is increasing distrust of the sort of politician we've grown used to, and tired of, so alternatives are being sought out; are gaining popularity; and are faring well in some cases.
But Trump isn't the answer. What we need is someone with as much appeal as Tony Blair had in the early years, as much confidence and strength of will as Margaret Thatcher, but, vitally, as principled as George Lansbury, Jeremy Corbyn, or Bernie Sanders.
This is not understanding RealPolitik. If you don't dominate the world, someone else will, and it may not be good for you at all. If that happens, even your own people won't be safe anymore. Even your own morality and well-being will no longer be upheld.
A form of christianity that puts nationalism above charity strikes me as quite self contradictory. Indeed, I cannot comprehend how Trump is apparently thought of as virtuous in christian terms.
Charity isn't the only virtue. Much more important in this day and age are the hard virtues - discipline, strength, courage, chastity etc, - these are what is lacking today, not compassion. We have more compassion than we need in our culture.
This conversation has reinforced for me the unpleasant parallel between the present state of US politics and Ur-facism: the cult of tradition, the rejection of rationality, the call for action for action's sake, disagreement is treason, fear of difference, the appeal to middle-class frustration, the privilege of one's country of birth, contrived humiliation by the enemy, contempt for the weak, mythologising the hero, machoism, the pretence of the common will of the people, newspeak - Eco called them all, and all are now in place in the supposed land of the free.
The society you are imagining is impossible because it cannot survive. The mean and nasty will destroy it. There is no option in this world but being strong. Only strength, and strength alone, can protect a nation.
What good will not being afraid do to you if it means that you shall perish? I am afraid - therefore I survive. You are not afraid - therefore you perish. This is the logic of real politik.
Then will you make a donation to the British Labour Party? (Y)
@Agustino, as of now, it has been ten minutes since my last reply to you. I hope you're spending this time wisely - perhaps by making my suggested donation. Trust me, you won't find any Tory in heaven... not that you'll ever find that out. >:)
I think you misunderstand. One does not seek virtue.
No, I don't misunderstand. But you, on the other hand, are patently mistaken. Of course there are people who seek virtue. There have been for centuries. Either you've been living under a rock all this time or you're kidding yourself.
Why don't you try coming out of the darkness, Willow? I can enlighten you.
His "theology" is only the proof of materialism (and more or less atheism), but I guess that doesn't matter when the word "God" is involved.
The only? No, it is not. He attempted to prove:
[quote=The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy]...that God—an infinite, necessary and uncaused, indivisible being—is the only substance of the universe...[/quote]
Which is quite ridiculous and a fool's errand. You might as well attempt to prove that everything is Goat.
just a random thought (and really, aren't those the most fun?)...
Not that i would call myself a "Christian" in the strictest sense... (despite being [s]indoctrinated[/s] raised Catholic, finding wisdom in the Gospels, and admiring most of the less crazy Christian mystics)
But... (and I don't mean to sound irreverent)... i mean, if Jesus wanted to schedule the Second Coming anytime soon or something like that... that might be kinda cool. I'd be ok with that. Not really anything on my calendar that couldn't be rescheduled. Not looking for anyone to get thrown into some eternal lake of fire or anything. More like Mommy showing up when your bigger brother is pounding the snot out of you for touching his stuff or something. Just kinda putting things right. And getting an ice pack for your head...
just one of many random thoughts.
It's the opposite of foolish. In doing so, he undoes the metaphysical blunder (equivocation between infinite and finite) which characterises most of philosophy of human history. He proves materialism (the metaphysical position-- a reality of a single substance) and (by the transcendent definition of God) atheism.
Since God (the infinite, necessary, uncaused and indivisible) has a nature that precludes being an existing state (finite, contingent, caused and divided), God cannot exist. There can be no transcendental realm. To be infinite, the change and division of existing states is closed. God cannot be or do anything in the world. Either would make God divided and caused, meaning God would not be infinite.
If God is Real (infinite), God necessarily doesn't exist and cannot be an actor in casualty.
I bought a couch today from a man named Loren, a man so fat he carried a rag that he'd use to mop his fat head as he tried to sell me a warranty I'd refuse to buy, but who would continue to preach its virtue, all the while mopping his big fat face. Had I not been entertaining myself with the deviant thought of wringing the sweat from the rag and allowing it to drip down my face and lips, I could not have kept up my usual sunny disposition.
TheWillowOfDarknessJanuary 22, 2017 at 02:20#487320 likes
1. I am Sapientia.
2. Sapientia is wisdom.
3. Therefore, I am wisdom.
4. Only wisdom is the opposite of foolish.
5. Therefore, Sapientia is the opposite of foolish.
6. Spinoza's attempted proof of God is not Sapientia.
7. Therefore, Spinoza's attempted proof of God is not the opposite of foolish.
I bought a couch today from a man named Loren, a man so fat he carried a rag that he'd use to mop his fat head as he tried to sell me a warranty I'd refuse to buy, but who would continue to preach its virtue, all the while mopping his big fat face.
Sounds like he knows as much about virtue as Agustino. Or Willow.
[Quote="Banno;48749"]That Agustino sees Trump as a bastion of christian virtue tells us much about Agustino.[/quote]
That conservative Christians have come to embrace Trump as much as they have makes me very cynical about their beliefs, at least when it comes to politics. It's almost as if the Republican party beating out the Democratic one is more important than any Christian values.
Pseudo-president Donny Trump is said to be a Presbyterian. Nearly-president Hillary Clinton is said to be a Methodist. But then, Richard M. Nixon was a Quaker -- so what does that tell us?
Reply to Sapientia And why do you suppose I'd donate to the torries or even that I like the torries? :s I don't think anyone in british politics represents my view. Check my profile under uploads, and you'll see that most of UK's parties are equal in representing my views - none do so very well.
That conservative Christians have come to embrace Trump as much as they have makes me very cynical about their beliefs, at least when it comes to politics. It's almost as if the Republican party beating out the Democratic one is more important than any Christian values.
That's because liberals only have one virtue - an all-extending compassion and benevolence. They know nothing, and I really mean nothing else. They can't understand how strength is a virtue, they can't understand how chastity is a virtue, they can't understand how loyalty/devotion are virtues, they can't understand how courage is a virtue, they can't understand how discipline is a virtue and so on. They only have one virtue, which has grown to be so extensive that is has destroyed all the others, and therefore has also destroyed itself, for benevolence cannot ensure survival and victory, and hence cannot ensure that it will be maintained.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_virtues
Liberals can't understand Real Politik - for them, Real Politik is immoral. That's why liberals will never win the cultural wars. Their all extended benevolence has placed them in a straight-jacket, and of course they rationalise this by thinking of themselves as good guys, and then thinking how the good guys always lose. Yes if the good guys are dumb, they lose.
And why do you suppose I'd donate to the torries or even that I like the torries? :s
No, that isn't what I meant to suggest. When I said that you won't find a Tory in heaven, I meant to suggest that that is a reason to help remove them from power, and the best way of doing that is by supporting Labour. And one way of doing that is by making a donation. But I don't suppose you'd actually do so, or that you even like Labour. But if, as you claim, you're a socialist, then I think that you should support them, even if not financially.
I don't think anyone in British politics represents my view. Check my profile under uploads, and you'll see that most of UK's parties are equal in representing my views - none do so very well.
I haven't looked yet, but if I were to take a stab in the dark... is this, perchance, about sex again?
By the way, do you remember when, during the election, you claimed something along the lines that Fox News wasn't biased in favour of trump, and was actually presenting polls more damning of him than others? Well, as you can see below, it's business as usual over at Fox. They won't even defend [I]themselves[/I] against Trump!
[quote=BBC News]What are US media saying?
The new president repeated his low opinion of the media dubbing reporters "among the most dishonest human beings on earth". Mr Spicer vowed "to hold the press accountable".
In their reaction, major US media outlets flatly denied the claims made by the US president and his spokesman.
The New York Times, singled out by Mr Spicer, denounced "false claims".
CNN said it did not even broadcast the spokesman's statement live. It said the press secretary had attacked the media "for accurately reporting" and went on to debunk the claims.
ABC news also goes into detail to refute the claims.
Pro-Trump Fox News reported the claims unchallenged.
BuzzFeed News accuses Mr Spicer of lying and goes on to provide Twitter memes generated from his remarks.[/quote]
So the meek aren't blessed. They just inherit dirt as BC said.
That's not so certain. Heaven gives and Heaven takes away. Us humans are like straw dogs - the best we can do is the best we can do, but even that may not be enough.
Let us assume that 250,000 Trump protestors boarded either planes, cars, buses, and trains and made their way to DC and filled the hotels, restaraunts and eventually the streets. Very conservatively, let us assume this adventure cost each protestor $200 each and 48 hours of time. That would be in DC alone (and there were many other protestors throughout the US), $25m and 12m hours. So, option 1 - donate $25m to the local DC shelters, hospitals and other worthy causes, option 2 - volunteer 12m hours of community service back in your local communities, or option 3 - futilely complain about how your candidate lost to those who already agree with you.
Millions came together with massive resources and talent and they figured out how to cleverly create signs, make moving speeches, comfort one another, and make no difference at all.
Reply to Sapientia I actually think Fox' approach here is correct. The media needs to stop being the news and needs to just report the news. A neutral who defends itself isn't a neutral.
This conversation has reinforced for me the unpleasant parallel between the present state of US politics and Ur-facism: the cult of tradition, the rejection of rationality, the call for action for action's sake, disagreement is treason, fear of difference, the appeal to middle-class frustration, the privilege of one's country of birth, contrived humiliation by the enemy, contempt for the weak, mythologising the hero, machoism, the pretence of the common will of the people, newspeak - Eco called them all, and all are now in place in the supposed land of the free.
Banno, maybe "disagreement is treason" in Australia but it is not here in the USA.
Having said that, after reading your words, I find it highly arrogant to think such a way, considering the way that the Australian government is treating the refugees that seek shelter on Australia's shores.
I am not here to say that the USA is perfect or that we know the exact way to move into the future but as God himself said "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself."
And please link me to the world wide movement, to highlight the cruel and inhumane way that Australia's government treats it's refuges. And please, have more respect for those who are in the detention centers, where women are raped and Doctors cannot report the abuse, where children who are born in the detention centers are issued a number not a name, that they ARE Australian refuges despite what your government claims.
Miffed Tiff
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 22, 2017 at 14:19#488220 likes
Millions came together with massive resources and talent and they figured out how to cleverly create signs, make moving speeches, comfort one another, and make no difference at all.
One question kept running through my mind which was: where were all these protestors in the USA, on election day?
"Women's march" is code for "ignorant leftists and abortionists butthurt they lost an election." Notice, too, that they're all taking place in the West.
"Women's march" is code for "ignorant leftists and abortionists butthurt they lost an election." Notice, too, that they're all taking place in the West.
>:O Sometimes Thorongil, I think these people live in fairy land. Honestly. They have no idea about the Earth itself! Forget the Heavens. They don't even understand the Earth! >:O
Oh, but they think they do, given their apocalypticism regarding "climate change."
>:O - man has a tendency to think he knows when he doesn't actually know. They think there won't be an economic crisis, or they think there will be one, and so forth. Man is most terrible at the thing he does most often - predicting what will happen.
Trump can't do miracles, even though he's probably America's best bet.
Ha! Did you hear Trump's inaugural address? All the things which made America great in the first place, good trade relations with others, aid to others, charity, etc., Trump desires to put an end to, in some self-interested way. This is supposed to make America great "again"? I smell delusion.
All the things which made America great in the first place, good trade relations with others, aid to others, charity, etc.,
Yes charity - exploiting millions of black lives to build a giant empire, waiting for the opportune moment to join two World Wars and destroy the opposition and then dictate the terms. That certainly sounds like what made America great in the first place was a lot of decency and friendliness :-}
Are we good with opposing views in here? I'm Canadian, pro-Trump because I think he's the best option in cleaning up the mess of the establishment, though they'll put heavy pressure on him to tow the party-line or face repercussions like JFK. Hollywood spokes-persons and young mobs instigated by the panicking media owned by the establishment who want only their own wealth, war & politically-correct suppression.
Reply to MongrelReply to Mongrel Ok, I can see that possibility. Perhaps it is the position of US president that is the straw dog, no matter the personality. Trump is currently being roasted, but I do believe he will burn a strong 4 to 8 years giving a considerable bang for buck/get some helpful wiggle room helping the financial/medical/social well-being of US ordinary citizens.
You guys can dance. I'll read the prayers. Who are we praying to? Trump?
Those who have only recently been initiated to straw dog cannot read prayers I'm afraid. We'll be praying to Trumpus Magnificus and sacrificing a straw dog in the hopes that our Mongolia will be spared for the next thousand years! (Y) >:O
Reply to MongrelReply to Mongrel No, I've only once briefly been to Toronto many moons ago, I think to the Science Center tho. This came to my vague memory. https://www.ontariosciencecentre.ca/Tour/Electricity-Demo/ I love good life mysteries; level playing field because no one knows for sure, even experts.
His "theology" is only the proof of materialism (and more or less atheism), but I guess that doesn't matter when the word "God" is involved.
:-} This is certainly not true, and certainly not loyal to how Spinoza saw himself. Yes, he did think the concept of God that most people (including believers have) is wrong, but it doesn't follow from this that he is an atheist (in an unqualified way). Indeed being an acosmist rules out the possibility of atheism - Spinoza holds that something IS divine - namely Substance.
Now Spinozism is compatible with a certain kind of atheism with regards to the claims of official religions, there's no doubt about that. But that's where the buck stops.
It's the opposite of foolish. In doing so, he undoes the metaphysical blunder (equivocation between infinite and finite) which characterises most of philosophy of human history.
He proves materialism (the metaphysical position-- a reality of a single substance)
Nope. Materialism, like idealism commits the blunder of assigning empirical meaning to the infinite. Yes, no doubt that "atoms and void" play the same metaphysical functional role that Substance does in Spinoza, or Agathon does in Plato - however both Plato and Epicurus ascribe empirical meaning to these concepts, beyond their metaphysical meaning. In so doing, they confuse and intermingle physics and metaphysics, and thus do violence to both the finite and the infinite.
Since God (the infinite, necessary, uncaused and indivisible) has a nature that precludes being an existing state (finite, contingent, caused and divided), God cannot exist.
God cannot exist in an empirical sense, it is clear that God can and does exist for Spinoza. In fact - ONLY God exists.
If God is Real (infinite), God necessarily doesn't exist and cannot be an actor in casualty.
In casualty? Oh dear... This statement though is vague. God either can't be an actor, or is always an actor. God is everywhere or is nowhere. These are saying the same thing with reference to the empirical as they are virtually indistinguishable.
I joined in the local protest. Here it was a celebration of feminism, with an emphasis on human rights, bodily integrity and women as leaders, and included condemnation of our appalling treatment of refugees and first people. While Trump's misogyny was the trigger, it was not the focus.
Cost me a few dollars for petrol and a round of drinks after. It was enjoyable, and invigorating to see how many folk turned out.
It seems that the number of folk who turn out to these things is important to some folk.
Hangover has forgotten that there are folks who live in DC. Not all 250,000 flew in.
So now I go back to lobbying, writing, sending money to political and other organisations. Turning up to a march is not all we do.
No it doesn't follow from anything that I am afraid of women. That's the greatest non sequitur that I've ever heard in fact. I'm against promiscuity. I don't give a shit if it's done by a woman or by a man, it's equally reprehensible in both cases.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 22, 2017 at 21:51#489910 likes
Reply to Banno While I appreciate your explanation as to why you were there, the damage has been done by the way the media is portraying your support.
Australian protestors had professional signs stating that the march in Canberra was to stand in Solidarity with the Woman's March on Washington.
With slogans like "WOMEN'S RIGHTS MUST NOT BE TRUMPED" on Australian signs? Why would there be any doubt? I think it was very much a part of the focus that once again the media is portraying.
Banno, I know you, I respect you and am blessed to call you friend. But for the life of me I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that the failure of the US President would ever be something you would wish for... :s
TheWillowOfDarknessJanuary 22, 2017 at 22:01#489940 likes
Agustino:In casualty? Oh dear... This statement though is vague. God either can't be an actor, or is always an actor. God is everywhere or is nowhere. These are saying the same thing with reference to the empirical as they are virtually indistinguishable.
On the contrary, it is specific: God is not causal actor (state of the world is causality) because that would make God finite and not Real. Your analysis is the one vague here. We know that God can't be an actor and that God is everywhere (the infinite expressed by any state). To say God is everywhere or nowhere is not indistinguishable at all. In metaphysics, it has a clear meaning referring to the expression of substance in the former and the presence of an existing state in the latter.
You're peddling mystical bullshit here-- arguing as though the difference between everywhere (expression of infinite) and nowhere (not an existing state) was somehow unintelligible. It's a failure to recognise the infinite, remaining attached to the notion there is some way it permanency might actually exist, rather then being limited to expression.
Agustino:God cannot exist in an empirical sense, it is clear that God can and does exist for Spinoza. In fact - ONLY God exists.
You mean God is expressed in anything that exists-- there is only God, substance, in the unity of reality. There can be no other substance which is of existing states/casual actors (e.g. transcendent realms).
"To exist," to be a finite state, is the empirical. It's what God is not.
Agustino:Spinoza holds that something IS divine - namely Substance.
Indeed, but that's the entire point here. God is certainly Real, but that entails being non-existent. If Substance is divine, then atheism obtains with respect to divinity. All existing states (including worldly "gods" ) are not Real. Spinoza's divinity not only takes out transcendent gods, but also the divinity of any worldly gods. Since all worldly gods are finite states, they are not divine by Spinoza's terms. No doubt worldly "gods" are possible, but they are merely super beings.
How would he not agree? Would he make the argument the finite could be Real? The trouble with definitions is they are defined in themselves. Someone can't disagree with them without using them.
If Spinoza is going to disagree with me (as opposed just make statements which don't address what I am speaking of), then he's going to have to say, with respect to my strange definitions, I am mistaken to think the finite cannot be Real.
He would tell you that God or Substence necessarily exist, and indeed cannot be conceived as non-existent. This follows from his definition:
"By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself" (E1d3) Spinoza
It is indeed only when you re-concieve the notion of existence as applying only in the sense it applies to finite and empirical states, that you create the conundrum.
Consider also:
"By eternity I understand existence itself, insofar as it is conceived to follow necessarily from the definition alone of the eternal thing" (E1d8)
"It pertains to the nature of a substance to exist" (E1p7)
"God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists" (E1p11)
And so forth. You're clearly using the word exist differently than Spinoza. Again your point is valid - according to your own usage of it. But Spinoza would certainly not use the word in this manner.
I decided to make myself a deep-dish Eggplant Parmesan today. Its funny how much nostalgia is involved in cooking. A glass of Merlot from an inexpensive, but good California vineyard.
It came out good!
That refers to the necessary, not to the existent.
Spinoza does talk about "existing" at some points during the definition of substance, but what can this mean? Certainly not that substance it a state of the word. If this is so, how then does he disagree with me? His position has no disagreement with my point at all. He's just using "God exists" in a different way than I, one consistent with acosmism amounting to atheism-- where the divine is defined by not being a state of existence.
He's just using "God exists" in a different way than I, one consistent with acosmism amounting to atheism-- where the divine is defined by not being a state of existence.
:-}
His position is consistent with acosmism, and his position doesn't entail that the divine is empirical, no. As I've said you are right, only that you've redefined the terms that Spinoza uses, such as "exist", in ways he would not have defined them. And Spinoza would have denied his position is atheistic. Atheistic would be there is no divine full stop. Nothing is divine, not even substance. That's what Spinoza would consider as atheism.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 23, 2017 at 02:22#490860 likes
Yes charity - exploiting millions of black lives to build a giant empire, waiting for the opportune moment to join two World Wars and destroy the opposition and then dictate the terms. That certainly sounds like what made America great in the first place was a lot of decency and friendliness :-}
You, just like Trump, really haven't got a clue as to what made America great. And Trump, judging by his policies, doesn't even have a clue as to what greatness is, seeing some sort of selfish vanity as greatness. Oh how the greatness of America has evolved. It became great. It saw greatness within itself. Now it sees greatness as seeing greatness within itself. What a sad deluded state.
You can actually have a cake and eat it too, but you can't eat a cake and have it too, which is the proper expression. Saying it right was a clue in catching the unibomber.
What's the point of having cake if you aren't going to eat so much of it in one sitting that you hate yourself? And the only thing that will take the pain away is more cake...
Yeah, remember in the 90s when the big corporate distributors were beginning to use over seas child slave labour in appalling working conditions to make dirt cheap products, and then everyone just stopped talking and caring about that even though it just got worse and worse?
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover
I, just like Trump, understand RealPolitik - you don't. You live in pink-flying-unicorns fantasy land, and think that world is reality, governed by a progressive-liberal all embracing and artificial compassion :-}
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 23, 2017 at 14:14#492200 likes
I, just like Trump, understand RealPolitik - you don't.
Perhaps, because I understand realpolitk as a form opportunism. Have you found a way to distance Realpolitik from opportunism? Since opportunism is fundamentally unprincipled, it is inherently selfish. Have you found principles to distance selfishness from opportunism? If not, then all you're talking about with "realpolitik" is a form of selfishness.
Perhaps, because I understand realpolitk as a form opportunism
Realpolitik doesn't necessarily imply opportunism. Opportunism is taking each and every opportunity available and using it to fulfil your goal/purpose. Realpolitik shuns this approach as naive and stupid, and ultimately contrary to the fulfilment of your goal/purpose. Rather one is to wait for the right opportunity before striking (Clinton doesn't understand Real Politik for example - that's why she ran so many times for President - she's stupid - you have to pick the right moment). Realpolitik isn't an ethics - indeed, it is an approach to life and politics that is above ethics, in the sense that a multitude of ethics can function along with Realpolitik. Selfishness is ultimately self-defeating according to Realpolitik though, and as such contrary to fulfilling your own goals, though it is an integral element in the functioning of most human beings which you have to take into account and, depending on the situation, even exploit.
Realpolitik isn't an ethics - indeed, it is an approach to life and politics that is above ethics, in the sense that a multitude of ethics can function along with Realpolitik.
Right, realpolitik is all about fulfilling goals, regardless of whether the goals are good or bad, that's why a person of any ethical bent can use it.
Your talk about an approach to life which is above ethics actually scares me, because I think that you and others really believe this. How do we determine which people (tyrants) are allowed to rise above ethics?
Selfishness is ultimately self-defeating according to Realpolitik though, and as such contrary to fulfilling your own goals...
If you believe that line, you're falling for deception. Fulfilling one's own goals is selfishness, pure and simple. Whoever told that selfishness is inconsistent with fulfilling one's own goals has lead you down the garden path. I suggest that whoever told you this was only attempting to hide his or her own selfishness. Did someone tell you "you can focus only on fulfilling your own goals without being selfish"? If so, it appears like you fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. If not, I think you're just deceiving yourself.
Your talk about an approach to life which is above ethics actually scares me, because I think that you and others really believe this.
No, life isn't above ethics, rather an approach to problems is above ethics - meaning independent of ethics. So regardless of what my ethics are, I adopt Realpolitk. Nothing prevents me from being an ethical man however.
Reply to Agustino That's interesting, to say the least. Only a 1-2% percent difference between those four political parties? Lib Dems and UKIP are opposites regarding the EU, and they are quite far apart, politically. That UKIP came second is not a good sign. And it's a shame that Labour and the Greens are at the bottom, below the Tories and UKIP, although that isn't much of a surprise.
I actually think Fox' approach here is correct. The media needs to stop being the news and needs to just report the news. A neutral who defends itself isn't a neutral.
I can't read the words "Fox" and "neutral" in relation to each other whilst keeping a straight face.
Reply to Sapientia Well the four parties - UKIP, Lib Dems, Labour, and Tories are virtually tied for me. +/-1% makes no difference. So you saying that "Labour came at the bottom" is not really saying anything. Green came at the bottom.
The fact that they all land so close, illustrate that they all have roughly 40% of policies/views that I agree with. For example, with regards to immigration, I agree with some things of UKIP, but not everything. With regards to health care, I agree with Labour and Lib Dems. And so forth.
What this shows more than anything, is that no party represents someone like me. Only 40% of my views are represented by any particular party. It doesn't even make sense for me to vote.
Well the four parties - UKIP, Lib Dems, Labour, and Tories are virtually tied for me. +/-1% makes no difference. So you saying that "Labour came at the bottom" is not really saying anything. Green came at the bottom.
I said that [i]both[/I] are at the bottom, which is correct. They are the bottom two, and the Greens came last. It still says something that those two in particular came below all the others, because those two are the most left-wing.
The fact that they all land so close, illustrate that they all have roughly 40% of policies/views that I agree with. For example, with regards to immigration, I agree with some things of UKIP, but not everything. With regards to health care, I agree with Labour and Lib Dems. And so forth.
What this shows more than anything, is that no party represents someone like me. Only 40% of my views are represented by any particular party. It doesn't even make sense for me to vote.
It likely [i]would[/I] make sense for you to vote, [i]unless[/I] those issues are all roughly of the same importance to you - and I doubt that that's the case. You've already made clear that you prioritise social issues over economic issues. Hence, you'd rather vote for someone like Trump because of his anti-abortion rhetoric, even if that means that society would be worse off in terms of economic equality.
More than 200 people who were mass-arrested at the Washington, D.C. protests against the inauguration of Donald Trump have been hit with felony riot charges that are punishable by up to 10 years in prison
I said that both are at the bottom, which is correct. They are the bottom two, and the Greens came last. It still says something that those two in particular came below all the others, because those two are the most left-wing.
:-d Yeah sure it's certainly significant that Labor came at 41% and Tories came at 42% >:O
It likely would make sense for you to vote, unless those issues are all roughly of the same importance to you - and I doubt that that's the case.
In UK I would vote Lib Dems or Labour. Definitely not Tories nor Green. The survey this was based in did ask me to rate the issues based on importance as well. The English Tories are fuckin corrupt!
You've already made clear that you prioritise social issues over economic issues. Hence, you'd rather vote for someone like Trump because of his anti-abortion rhetoric, even if that means that society would be worse off in terms of economic equality.
Economic equality in and by itself isn't of value to me. It's a value within a certain context. If the society is strong, prosperous and virtuous, then economic equality becomes of high importance. In a society which is hedonistic, weak, and in decline, I don't give a fuck about economic equality.
More than 200 people who were mass-arrested at the Washington, D.C. protests against the inauguration of Donald Trump have been hit with felony riot charges that are punishable by up to 10 years in prison
Yeah 200 is certainly a "mass-arrest" when the protest includes 500,000 people.
Please, no more fake news (Y) You, as Trump said, are fake news.
And it's good that 200 were arrested. They should learn not to be fucking hooligans and uncivilised monkeys next time - there's consequences for behaviour in this world, unless you live in liberal-fantasy lala land where there are pink flying unicorns... :-}
Having said that, after reading your words, I find it highly arrogant to think such a way, considering the way that the Australian government is treating the refugees that seek shelter on Australia's shores.
Banno is not the Australian government, as far as I'm aware.
Ha! Did you hear Trump's inaugural address? All the things which made America great in the first place, good trade relations with others, aid to others, charity, etc., Trump desires to put an end to, in some self-interested way. This is supposed to make America great "again"? I smell delusion.
One of those rare moments where we're both on the same page...
Trump has done very well in uniting people against him.
The headline:
"In Trump's America, 'Felony Riot' Charges Against Inauguration Protesters Signal Dangerous Wave of Repression"
full article here:
http://www.alternet.org/trumps-america-felony-riot-charges-against-inauguration-protesters-signal-dangerous-wave-repression
Reply to Cavacava Yes, out of the 500,000 only 200 were arrested, and they probably deserved it. If 0.04% of people at a protest get arrested, that's not mass-arrests. Only fake media would call them mass arrests.
If you want to stop protesters, threaten them with Felony charges and pick them up indiscriminately, that is repression.
How do you know they were picked up indiscriminately? That's only your opinion. As for threatening them, if they break the law, they should be threatened. Furthermore, a protest should have an aim. Why are they protesting against Trump? What do they want? Do they want just to make life harder for everyone?! Because if they want Trump to step down or some stupid thing like that, you can bet that won't happen.
I can see no valid reason for protesting against Trump. None. These protesters are just sore losers and what they are doing is at least immoral.
I suggest these liberals go back to their Tinder lifestyles, and leave politics alone. This world isn't for them. They should go back to their pink unicorn dreams.
Some of the protesters facing such charges filed a class action lawsuit, however, alleging that they were unfairly arrested in what their lawyers described as mass, indiscriminate arrests by D.C. police.
The only way to deal with Trump is to keep him buried in litigation on every possible front.
The only way to deal with Trump is to keep him buried in litigation on every possible front.
:s So you are purposefully going to stop him from carrying out his politics? With full knowledge, you're going to do whatever it takes to stop the well-functioning of the country. If that's their plan, then I think they are petty and immoral creatures. Good that conservatives are smarter - we didn't act like such pussies back when Obama won.
But that doesn't stop people - [url=https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38134859&ved=0ahUKEwjyifeskdnRAhXDvRoKHZILAqIQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNFcu1CDhUs-FR9WW9NHATFRSYhZEw&sig2=_ZHB99HMa3_z9cntQqestQ]or governments[/URL] - from trying. Perhaps they'll find out the hard way.
Some of the protesters facing such charges filed a class action lawsuit, however, alleging that they were unfairly arrested in what their lawyers described as mass, indiscriminate arrests by D.C. police.
Oh and this - this is how THEIR lawyers report it. What the hell did you expect? Did you expect their lawyers to say "Oh they were rascals who were breaking public goods, beating people up, etc.?"
This is an appeal to traditional GOP values...exactly what they did.
They did this politically in Congress. You're supposed to do that there, that's the place where you debate and engage in politics. Not protests. Protests must have a reasonable goal. Keeping Trump in a straight jacket isn't a reasonable goal.
Reply to Cavacava
I actually disagree.
I don't think the dems should be as bad or worse than the reps were with Obama.
I think they we should do it the rep way and let people see, again, what this leads to.
Protesting is supposed to be a right.
Regardless if others believe you have "a reasonable goal" or not.
If you're going to protest in vain, then you're crazy, not to mention immoral and selfish. If that's how you see yourself, go on, but don't expect the rest of us not to take any action against you if you keep disturbing us.
YEA BECAUSE SOME OF YOU WERE TOO BUSY GABBING PUSSIES
And I might add that it's better to have Donald Trump recognise publicly that grabbing pussy is wrong than to have you and other Tinder liberals telling us that grabbing pussy is alright through your own actions.
If you're going to protest in vain, then you're crazy, not to mention immoral and selfish. If that's how you see yourself, go on, but don't expect the rest of us not to take any action against you if you keep disturbing us.
I think you missed the point.
Protesting is a right regardless is you happen to believe it is crazy or immoral.
You know our basic rights protected by the constitution?
Reply to Heister Eggcart When you write your post, you see on the right hand corner of that place the emoticons button right? Two buttons to the left of that, next to the twitter button is the "Upload Files" option
In UK I would vote Lib Dems or Labour. Definitely not Tories nor Green. The survey this was based in did ask me to rate the issues based on importance as well. The English Tories are fuckin corrupt!
You're a hard nut to crack, Agustino. I had you pegged as more of Tory. They're more socially conservative than other parties. And most Labour voters are strongly against Trump. And that's probably true of the Lib Dems also - which would make sense when it comes to immigration, for example.
Economic equality in and by itself isn't of value to me. It's a value within a certain context. If the society is strong, prosperous and virtuous, then economic equality becomes of high importance. In a society which is hedonistic, weak, and in decline, I don't give a fuck about economic equality.
In the US people have the right to protest, it's legal and it seems as though protests are more successful for the people. Without protests I doubt we would have had a civil rights movement.
Reply to Heister Eggcart Yeah we're very similar on economics, but obviously you're more libertarian on social issues and I'm more authoritarian. I expected that to be honest.
Reply to Agustino
lol
taxless utopia is a realistic goal though and will solve all the worlds problems
TheWillowOfDarknessJanuary 23, 2017 at 21:17#493430 likes
Agustino:You'd rather gain the world and lose your soul then?
Every time. The world expresses the soul. Without the world, all one has is a pretence of superiority and success, a fiction blind to the horrors committed in the world. The soul without the world is an apology for atrocity.
Every time. The world expresses the soul. Without the world, all one has is a pretence of superiority and success, a fiction blind to the horrors committed in the world. The soul without the world is an apology for atrocity.
Women's march recap: Protests make history as more than three million across the globe stand against Donald Trump
They got off their duff.
Liberals have always been known for being butthurt and crying like little children that the state doesn't finance their contraception in college and other shit like that :-d They take that for granted, they never question it's morality. That's also well known. I guess they should be treated with the same indifference and contempt that they treat those who dare question their morality.
That is what I said, you believe you have to impose your notions of virtue on others.
No I should rather let my community fail and destroy itself, then I can die with it as well. That sounds like a good future, I'll certainly choose that.
It's not your virtue that's at stake, but rather the world in which other people live and express their virtue. You'd rather lose them and their virtue, for this narrative of transcendent soul.
So I have a martyr fantasy because I notice that I need my community to exist, and therefore if my community is hurt (or corrupt or lacking virtue) then I too lack virtue and am hurt? You don't know what you're talking about, sorry to tell you man.
Of course he does, he even dodged taxes for how many years and claimed it was because he was smart.
Which is true. Wouldn't you have done the same? If the state is run by incapable people who cannot manage money, why shouldn't you keep the tax money if you can do better things with it than the state can?
Says the man who has neither read, nor understood Spinoza.
Maybe I'll make that my next project. But it's not like I know nothing at all about it. Perhaps I've read enough as it is, and reading more will only confirm my current view. However much of a genius philosopher you might be, however elaborate your argument, and however you play around with language, [i]you can't polish a turd[/I].
It's not your virtue that's at stake, but rather the world in which other people live and express their virtue. You'd rather lose them and their virtue, for this narrative of transcendent soul.
There's no notion of transcendence here, only understanding that the community influences me, and a decadent community disrupts my own life. Therefore I must use my efforts to sustain my community morally. It's also a realisation that different ways of life are incompatible. Thus these butthurt liberals wishing to go back to their Tinder lifestyles should find another place for it if they can't win the political battle against me and others like me.
Maybe I'll make that my next project. But it's not like I know nothing at all about it. Perhaps I've read enough as it is, and reading more will only confirm my current view. However much of a genius philosopher you might be, however elaborate your argument, and however you play around with language, you can't polish a turd.
Well the thing is you don't understand where Spinoza is coming from when he's talking about God. You think he's talking about what you're talking about when you speak about God. You don't understand his larger vision or the meaning of his terms. Neither do you understand what he's doing. He's not saying anything about the empirical world there.
[reply="Agustino;4Liberals have always been known for being butthurt and crying like little children that the state doesn't finance their contraception in college and other shit like that :-d They take that for granted, they never question it's morality. That's also well known. I guess they should be treated with the same indifference and contempt that they treat those who dare question their morality.9350"] Reply to Agustino
Nonsense. Women, & minority rights were, and still are, hard fought battles. Morality is the question.
Do you think "alternate facts" are an alternate truths? or just a big fat lie?
This is the post truth era we are in, we don't have to fairly represent each others position and it is an insult for you to suggest that we should.
Okay, I wish you goodluck with that approach. It's the post-truth era. Give me a break. This is the other fabrication of butthurt liberals who cannot give up on their Tinder fantasy, and therefore resort to condemning the Real world (calling it post-truth) so that they can save the truth of their fantasy.
Again the conservatives defend their fantasy of taxless utopia just as butthurtfully.
Show me where you see conservatives in the street protesting almost naked, throwing stuff, breaking windows, screaming, shouting, cursing and so forth.
Nonsense. Women, & minority rights were, and still are, hard fought battles.
>:O
The fight for women's rights in the West has degraded into a shit show of stupidity in the last few decades. There's a kernel of work that still needs to be done, yes, but much of the rhetoric surrounding women and minority rights is embarrassing.
I can't read the words "Fox" and "neutral" in relation to each other whilst keeping a straight face.
So I'm listening to NPR today and this guy is explaining that Trump's attack on the media is damaging for at least two reasons (maybe more, I turned it off because it was so stupid). He said (1) these senior Trump officials now attacking the press are damaging their reputations by questioning the press and (2) Trump's motivation for damaging the press' reputation now is to protect him from future attacks by the press.
Why is this stupid? It's stupid because it refuses to accept that the press' reputation is just as suspect as Trump's administration, especially in light of their open effort to get Clinton elected. Do they not realize that Trump would lose support if he took a conciliatory approach to the press because the press is so obviously biased and beyond trust? Do they also not realize that their suggestion that Trump's attack on the them is due to his fear of future attack by them, as opposed to the fact that the press really does suck, just makes the press look all the more in denial.
Right before I turned it off, the guy was saying that maybe this attack on the press will win support among the staunchest Trump supporters but really no one else. Whatever. I can only say that the more the press speaks, the more I align with Trump, and I was far from a real Trump supporter when this all began.
Reply to m-theory No. You claimed conservatives defend their taxless utopia. I asked you where conservatives are protesting in a specific fashion in order to defend their taxless utopia. Instead you give me a link about how conservatives don't like Obama :s >:O
That's not what you said earlier (soul rather than the world)-- what you express their is a concern for the world, not a soul that exists above any beyond it.
The notion of the soul separate to the world is quite an important point because it impacts how other people register to us. It makes an apology for anything in the effort to defend the soul. Since the world doesn't matter, there is no question or comprehension of the impact "the promotion of virtue" has on others, most specifically, their own well-beng and virtue. We end-up telling the lies like locking someone away or making them a social outcast is somehow good for their well-being (sometimes it's good for the well-being of others, but rarely them).
Rather than a concern for community (whatever that might entail), one worships an image to which the destruction of anyone and everything is an appropriate action. If people don't express the image, they shall burn and it will be good, despite that destroys alls sorts of virtuous actions and connections in the process.
Taxless utopia might be a good dream.
But that does not make it realistic.
Conservatives are no different than libs, they get just as butt hurt when you threaten their pipe dreams.
No I don't remember conservatives coming out with 500,000 people to protest in the streets. Some conservatives may have protested, but definitely not such large numbers, and for so long.
That's not what you said earlier (soul rather than the world)-- what you express their is a concern for the world, not a soul that exists above any beyond it.
Not according to your interpretation, but I haven't used the word soul with the meaning you assign to it.
She was called a slut because she exercised her constitutional rights by giving testimony to Congress
:-d
By a guy who has been treated several times for Oxycontin abuse. He doesn't even understand that taking birth control pills is something you have do on a regular schedule. It is not about the number of sex partners a person has, it is about their proper use.
He doesn't even understand that taking birth control pills is something you have do on a regular schedule. It is not about the number of sex partners a person has, it is about their proper use.
Why does she need birth control to be financed by the state? If she wants to have sex (especially in immoral ways) she should pay for it.
Reply to Cavacava In fact, listen to me. I've been on college campuses. I know what's going on there. So don't bullshit with me. We both know why they want birth control, we both know that they want to have sex without commitment (especially long-term commitment) and so forth. All that is immoral and the state should have no business financing any of that. Quite the contrary, we should have publicity campaigns against it financed by the state. That's a much better use of that dough.
You'd rather gain the world and lose your soul then? :-d
The soul is just a myth. But if you mean something like my conscience, then my conscience would be fine. It is yours which needs examining. Didn't Christ teach to help the sinful, rather than look away in disgust? The Good Samaritan took pity on the traveller and helped him. That was his main concern. He didn't exclaim "Fuck him!" and walk on by. And there are biblical accounts of Jesus helping the sinful, rather than judging or turning a blind eye.
Didn't Christ teach to help the sinful, rather than look away in disgust?
And did the woman who commit adultery, when she was helped and saved by Christ, did she go like "No it's my right to commit adultery, I'm free to do with my body whatever I want!!!!" ? >:O
Well the thing is you don't understand where Spinoza is coming from when he's talking about God. You think he's talking about what you're talking about when you speak about God. You don't understand his larger vision or the meaning of his terms. Neither do you understand what he's doing. He's not saying anything about the empirical world there.
Ironically, [i]you[/I] don't know any of what you've accused me of. How can you? I haven't revealed to you my understanding in any detail. You're just [I]assuming[/I]. Either that or you're a mind reader.
Ironically, you don't know any of what you've accused me of. How can you? I haven't revealed to you my understanding in any detail. You're just assuming.
I'm assuming based on your own writing. It's clear to me that you don't have a clue as to what Spinoza means when he's saying that God necessarily exists. That's why you think it ridiculous in fact.
Reply to Agustino It's clear to me that you're willing to believe that. Even if you can't justify your belief - which you can't. So, it is clear to you in a similar way as the way in which it was clear to Ptolemy that the Earth is the centre of our solar system.
It's clear to me that you're willing to believe that. Even if you can't justify your belief - which you can't. So, it is clear to you in a similar way as the way in which it was clear to Ptolemy that the Earth is the centre of our solar system.
:-} What is clear to any observer is that what is ridiculous is the person claiming something is ridiculous without being able to provide reason as to why it is ridiculous. You just claim Spinoza's statement is ridiculous and expect us to believe you have the right notion of God that Spinoza was using...
And did the woman who commit adultery, when she was helped and saved by Christ, did she go like "No it's my right to commit adultery, I'm free to do with my body whatever I want!!!!" ? >:O
And Christ asked of her "Whatcha gonna do with all that junk? All that junk inside your trunk?"
And the sinful women replied "I'ma get get get get you drunk. Get you love drunk off my hump".
Reply to Agustino Similar. A kid got caught with rope and, later I was told, bondage toys in his locker at school after someone noticed them walking by. That school was big, but word still got around. A pretty, and seemingly innocent, young Christian classmate explained to me what BDSM was, at the basic level. I don't think either of us knew the extent that it goes to, though.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 23, 2017 at 22:58#494360 likes
Exactly, but not quite. Realpolitik doesn't work with those ethics which are contrary to the idea of realpolitik.
You haven't done a very good job of explaining to me that you understand what realpolitik is. So far I understand that you shape your goals according to the circumstances. This allows you to take advantage of the situation. Also, I understand that you are not confined by any particular ethics. This, as you say does not make you unethical, but nor does it make you ethical.
As an example then, suppose I am walking on the street and come across an unlocked car full of goods. Under the principles of realpolitik then, how am I to produce goals in this situation, if I am not constrained by any particular ethics? Why shouldn't I seize the opportunity to increase my holdings? And if it's alright for me to help myself to goods left unattended, why not smash the window of the locked car to get the goods?
As an example then, suppose I am walking on the street and come across an unlocked car full of goods. Under the principles of realpolitik then, how am I to produce goals in this situation, if I am not constrained by any particular ethics?
Then under the principle of Realpolitik you go on walking.
Why shouldn't I seize the opportunity to increase my holdings? And if it's alright for me to help myself to goods left unattended, why not smash the window of the locked car to get the goods?
Well for one, does such a goal resonate with you? For two, there are consequences for it, consequences that will get in the way of the achievement of other goals you presumably must have - unless your life is all about robbing cars.
What is clear to any observer is that what is ridiculous is the person claiming something is ridiculous without being able to provide reason as to why it is ridiculous. You just claim Spinoza's statement is ridiculous and expect us to believe you have the right notion of God that Spinoza was using...
Have you forgotten where we are, dear? This is the Shoutbox. I don't expect much, and I certainly haven't even attempted to provide any reason to adopt my view. If I decide to do so, I'll create a discussion.
A pretty, and seemingly innocent, young Christian classmate explained to me what BDSM was, at the basic level. I don't think either of us knew the extent that it goes to, though.
A girl you mean? >:O You should've asked her how she knows that!! Did you? :P
Reply to Heister Eggcart But on a serious note though, it's kind of strange that kids can not only know about BDSM but be interested in it to the point of trying it >:O
I'm less bothered by the painless forms of it, but...I think I'm starting sound like some expert when I'm not, so I'mma stop while I'm ahead >:O
>:O
To be honest it's just strange how such things come into people's minds. I mean I wouldn't expect someone to naturally stumble upon BDSM by themselves without hearing about it somewhere or seeing it... especially a kid lol.
"Desire" is also not a proper translation of the Buddhist meaning and tends to get blown way out of proportion. It's more accurately "craving" than "desire", and the Buddhists recognize many "wholesome desires" as good things to have.
To be honest it's just strange how such things come into people's minds. I mean I wouldn't expect someone to naturally stumble upon BDSM by themselves without hearing about it somewhere or seeing it... especially a kid lol.
It depends upon whether there's a fetish involved. I recently conversed with someone who eventually revealed to me that she has a fetish for vore (please don't look it up too much) and has had it since she was little, having looked at vore porn since she was about 7 or 8.
She may be pulling my dick with that story, but if you consider it for a moment, every super-weird-fetisher sounds like a fake. Although, the one "sexual" fetish that I have is decidedly less befuddling, so maybe I'm a bad judge.
It depends upon whether there's a fetish involved. I recently conversed with someone who eventually revealed to me that she has a fetish for vore (please don't look it up too much) and has had it since she was little, having looked at vore porn since she was about 7 or 8.
LOOOOOL I looked it up. I actually can't believe such a thing exists! And there is porn about that too... fuck! >:O
but if you consider it for a moment, every super-weird-fetisher sounds like a fake. Although, the one "sexual" fetish that I have is decidedly less befuddling, so maybe I'm a bad judge.
What gives rise to fetishes? I don't have any as far as I know LOL. I mean I can't imagine how someone would have a fetish about being consumed... I can imagine how someone would enjoy being bitten on the neck, and stuff like that - (I like that) - but to desire to actually be consumed? :s
Well my want to eat chocolate has been satisfied for today at least :P Some wants can be satisfied now, some can't be satisfied now, some can never be satisfied. Only pursue those that can be satisfied now and that are wholesome as Wos says.
What gives rise to fetishes? I don't have any as far as I know LOL. I mean I can't imagine how someone would have a fetish about being consumed... I can imagine how someone would enjoy being bitten on the neck, and stuff like that - (I like that) - but to desire to actually be consumed?
Some fetishes are pretty pointless and don't seem to affect anything. Others, like vore, do have some strange poetic undertones, at least that I've gleamed from it. And it's not about being eaten and consumed, it's more about being "unborned", going back into the womb, figuratively speaking, and dwelling within someone in some sort of blissful tranquility. There also is a theme of submissiveness, escape, protection from the outside world (by being inside someone, fully).
It's definitely weird, as Sappy wrote, but it's purely fantastical and physically impossible, so it's nothing to be worried about...unless your fetish is to be eaten alive by a cannibal *shrug*
The distinction is on of excess. Tanha are desires that cannot be satisfied, whereas the good ones can be. The former are simply unrealistic, harmful desires. Things for which the outcome cannot be attained because it cannot be done, because it doesn't lead to the outcome you think it does, or whatever. Good desires are things that can be attained, are healthy, and truly lead to the outcomes, and proportions that we think that they do.
She said that she has 6 terabytes of vore porn on her computer.
I refuse to believe that... >:O You must ask her to introduce you to that collection just to check if it's actually true... that is actually crazy man!
Some fetishes are pretty pointless and don't seem to affect anything. Others, like vore, do have some strange poetic undertones, at least that I've gleamed from it. And it's not about being eaten and consumed, it's more about being "unborned", going back into the womb, figuratively speaking, and dwelling within someone in some sort of blissful tranquility. There also is a theme of submissiveness, escape, protection from the outside world (by being inside someone, fully).
Ok but why associate those feelings - like the feeling of being protected, taken care of, undisturbed by the outside world, fully fulfilled, etc. - with a set of physical events (such as being consumed)?
I refuse to believe that... >:O You must ask her to introduce you to that collection just to check if it's actually true... that is actually crazy man!
Stop judging when you definitely have several terabytes of conservatism porn on your collection of floppy disks.
Ok but why associate those feelings - like the feeling of being protected, taken care of, undisturbed by the outside world, fully fulfilled, etc. - with a set of physical events (such as being consumed)?
There's an inherently irrational association that goes on with fetishes, although the more rational ties into early childhood experiences and genetics.
Reply to Sapientia That's fine, because I refuse to call you Wisdom, :-*
TheWillowOfDarknessJanuary 23, 2017 at 23:45#494990 likes
Agustino:Ok but why associate those feelings - like the feeling of being protected, taken care of, undisturbed by the outside world, fully fulfilled, etc. - with a set of physical events (such as being consumed)?
The body is the site where one is disturbed. To be consumed is to, quite literally, remove that site. It ends all disturbance of the body.
There's an inherently irrational association that goes on with fetishes, although the more rational ties into early childhood experiences and genetics.
I always have trouble understanding this. Maybe because I'm a very orderly and rational person, so everything I do pretty much has a reason for it. I can't understand why folks would do stuff with no reason for doing it ~ irrationally.
I can't understand why folks would do stuff with no reason for doing it ~ irrationally.
A fetish doesn't require its doing to be considered a fetish. I mean, I can't even "perform" my fetish, so "doing" it wouldn't make any sense. One can also have a fetish of vore but never do it (because they can't, realistically), and thus it's moot whether such a fetish is rational, irrational, whatever.
A fetish doesn't require its doing to be considered a fetish. I mean, I can't even "perform" my fetish, so "doing" it wouldn't make any sense. One can also have a fetish of vore but never do it (because they can't, realistically), and thus it's moot whether such a fetish is rational, irrational, whatever.
But certainly this doesn't explain how a fetish arises - basically you're saying that there's no explanation for why someone has such and such a fetish - it's irrational. The association that forms in their mind between certain experiences and certain feelings has no explanation...
TheWillowOfDarknessJanuary 23, 2017 at 23:54#495080 likes
It would... but then one is no longer their to enjoy the lack of disturbance, so it sort of misses the point. That it's fantasy is sort of the point. Within the mind, disturbance is resolved, so long as the fantasy is enacted.
But certainly this doesn't explain how a fetish arises - basically you're saying that there's no explanation for why someone has such and such a fetish - it's irrational.
I'm not ruling out there being a reason(s) which facilitates the development of fetishes. Merely because the explanations surrounding fetishes are uncertain, does not mean there is no explanation.
It would... but then one is no longer their to enjoy the lack of disturbance, so it sort of misses the point. That it's fantasy is sort of the point. Within the mind, disturbance is resolved, so long as the fantasy is enacted.
That seems strange and has some Lacanian airs about it. But it's not convincing because apparently being dead convinces them that they won't be able to experience those feelings, but being consumed doesn't convince them that they won't be able to experience those feelings that they are imagining. That is very very strange.
Death is not part of the fantasy. The consumption is only imaginary. There is, in fact, no death at all. In the world, they are engaged in a fulfilling sexual activity. Within the fantasy, they are a living being completed by consumption.
It's not really strange at all. Indeed, by what the fantasy and the world is, it makes perfect sense. Only when one thinks the image of fantasy and the world (e.g. in the fantasy, consumption and death are linked as per the world) are meant to be the same thing does it seem absurd.
Agustino:Lacanian
Pretty close. The fantasy is sort of hyperreal: the mind ceases to make a distinction between an imagined or world (being consumed and living) and reality, turning the fantasy into life for a little while. While the fantasy is never reality (nor really understood to be so), it feels like it is.
Your goals are your goals. They are not determined by your situation. Realpolitik is the way of achieving them, not of setting them.
OK, sorry, I'm just trying to understand, and it's difficult because none of this makes any sense to me. If I understand then, realpolitik makes no assumptions about good or bad goals. It provides no principles for ethical decisions. What it provides is principles for obtaining goals. It does not focus on ends, it focuses on the means.
So we're back to my original question. Goals are fundamentally proper to the individual, you have your goals, I have mine, and every individual has one's own goals. Individuals may share a goal or two, but no two individuals have the same goals. And if we don't share the same ethics, then we share very few goals. Since realpolitik focuses only on obtaining goals (means), providing no principles for creating common goals, how is it anything other than a tool of selfishness?
Since realpolitik focuses only on obtaining goals (means), providing no principles for creating common goals, how is it anything other than a tool of selfishness?
Goals are already communal in nature as they make reference to other people or even necessitate other people. Thus your individual goals can never be totally separated from other people's goals, so the entire point that you're struggling so much to make makes utterly no sense. So let go, free yourself from it. My goal to get banker X to loan me money is fulfilled by me going to play tennis with him, his goal being to have a tennis partner. You're sweating too much from all this convoluted effort at misunderstanding, no need. (Y)
Reply to Michael Good. Parliament [i]should be[/I] consulted on something so important. But Parliament has an obligation to honour the result. The Conservatives were elected on the basis that they'd offer an in-out referendum on the EU, and that the result would be honoured.
Death is not part of the fantasy. The consumption is only imaginary.
Yes but death could be imaginary as well - that's the point I'm making. Your position explains why they enjoy the fantasy, but it doesn't explain why their mind has associated those feelings with an imaginary consumption instead of with an imaginary death or non-being for example.
Well, one of my favorite political philosophers, Eric Voegelin, has a dictum - "Don't immanentize the eschaton!" The eschaton is taken to be, in his political philosophy, the state of the end times - the end of history (which is an ideal/transcendent, and can never actually be real within history - indeed that would be nonsensical). So Communists for example seek to immanentize the eschaton because they seek to bring their utopia into reality, and precisely this leads to totalitarianism, as reality never has the stability they demand of their utopia. And indeed he proceeds along those lines to critique all ideology, including a large number of philosophers, including, for example, Hegel. So folks like Punshhh and John would probably float dangerously close to being accused of immanentising Substance in the other thread - in the sense of making the logical, into the empirical, and the infinite, into finite - failing to recognise the distinction that Substance is precisely that which is NOT empirical.
On a similar note, I think fantasy (the Un-real, the imaginary) must be enjoyed qua fantasy. As you say the consumption must be an imaginary consumption - indeed it would be a fall into psychological disorder if the person tries to immanentize their fantasy - to make their fantasy real by for example actually arranging to be physically consumed (cannibalism). This necessitates that the boundary between fantasy and reality be maintained - that the fantasy be enjoyed qua fantasy. If this boundary is blurred, then the psychological health of the individual deteriorates. If this is avoided (immanentizing the fantasy) then fantasy can play a fulfilling role in the lives of people, even of married people - there's nothing wrong with role-playing, it's actually good, I'd recommend it to all married people :D
Reply to Heister Eggcart
Maybe we all fetishize. We all take inanimate objects and idealize them, giving them a 'transcendental' significance much in the same way some people fetishize black leather stilettos. Think about your house or dwelling, and how you think & feel about it.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 24, 2017 at 12:51#495940 likes
Goals are already communal in nature as they make reference to other people or even necessitate other people. Thus your individual goals can never be totally separated from other people's goals, so the entire point that you're struggling so much to make makes utterly no sense.
You're obviously wrong. Goals are individualistic in nature, they stem from our own desires. The fact that you live in a community, amongst other human beings, and you may see others as the object of your desire, or the means to your end, does not make your goal a communal goal. That another person may assist you in reaching your goal doesn't mean that the other person shares your goal. The other will usually want something in return, and that means that the other is just assisting you, as a trade, for the sake of one's own goal, and doesn't really share your goal.
My goal to get banker X to loan me money is fulfilled by me going to play tennis with him, his goal being to have a tennis partner.
See, you have your own goal, the banker has his own goal. There are two distinct goals here. There is no communal goal described here. Your realpolitik, which focuses on achieving goals, instead of focusing on establishing common goals, or at least establishing compatibility and consistency between individual goals, is inherently selfish.
You're obviously wrong. Goals are individualistic in nature, they stem from our own desires. The fact that you live in a community, amongst other human beings, and you may see others as the object of your desire, or the means to your end, does not make your goal a communal goal. That another person may assist you in reaching your goal doesn't mean that the other person shares your goal. The other will usually want something in return, and that means that the other is just assisting you, as a trade, for the sake of one's own goal, and doesn't really share your goal.
Are you purposefully playing dumb? It's my interest that my street is clean. I can't clean my street by myself, I require the help of my neighbours. Because we live in a community, and we share that space together, we're all interested that it be maintained as best as possible. Therefore we collaborate in caring for it.
See, you have your own goal, the banker has his own goal. There are two distinct goals here.
Yes but my goal and his are intertwined. My goal isn't an island, and neither is his goal an island. More like links in a chain. They rise and fall together.
Your realpolitik, which focuses on achieving goals, instead of focusing on establishing common goals, or at least establishing compatibility and consistency between individual goals, is inherently selfish.
No this doesn't follow at all. Goals are always already common by virtue of others being interested in some way in them.
Are you purposefully playing dumb? It's my interest that my street is clean. I can't clean my street by myself, I require the help of my neighbours. Because we live in a community, and we share that space together, we're all interested that it be maintained as best as possible. Therefore we collaborate in caring for it.
Now you've described a communal goal. You all share the street, you all share the goal of keeping the street clean. It is this "sharing" which creates communal goals, and sharing is induced by moral ethics.
Yes but my goal and his are intertwined. My goal isn't an island, and neither is his goal an island. More like links in a chain. They rise and fall together.
Yes, your goals are intertwined, but without the morally induced "sharing", you might just as easily be lying, cheating, bullying, or threatening, to achieve your goal, as trading fairly to achieve your goal.
Goals are always already common by virtue of others being interested in some way in them.
That's false. Goals are always of the individual first. Others do not even know my goals until I describe them, or otherwise demonstrate them to the others. Then the others decide whether they are interested in them or not.
This is why you do not apprehend the inherent selfishness of realpolitik, you are starting from the false premise that goals are naturally common. But this is clearly a false premise, goals must be made common, and this requires the ethics of sharing, and assisting. You seem to believe that ethics follows from people naturally having common goals. But that's not the case, we produce ethical principles of sharing etc., then this enables us to have common goals.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 24, 2017 at 13:33#496030 likes
Reply to Sapientia You said "goals are just goals". That implies that they are self-existent. You didn't seem to recognize that a goal is a property of a mind. That the same goal becomes the property of two or more minds is something which needs to be accounted for. Agustino starts with the premise that a goal is naturally communal, but this is false.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover No, you've read that into it. That's not what I meant. I was just emphasising what I'd already said.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 24, 2017 at 13:44#496060 likes
Reply to Sapientia What is at issue is whether a goal necessarily begins its existence as just the property of one mind, prior to becoming a common goal. If so, then any philosophy which concentrates on achieving goals, rather than making goals communal, is inherently selfish. I'm just waiting for Agustino to admit that he/she believes that selfishness is good.
Mrs Turtlehead's ancestors were from a northern tribe whose faces were blue.
They would run naked into battle, screaming and waving their arms like monkeys.
Sometimes Mr Turtlehead would look deep into her eyes hoping to see a glimpse
Of the mighty million.
Anyone who knew the Turtleheads kept a bible at their bedside thought they understood the joke.
But it was more private than they realized.
And if the truth had been revealed,
They would have wished for a fountain of forgetting.
Now you've described a communal goal. You all share the street, you all share the goal of keeping the street clean. It is this "sharing" which creates communal goals, and sharing is induced by moral ethics.
No it's not. It's induced by the realisation that we all have more if we share.
you might just as easily be lying, cheating, bullying, or threatening, to achieve your goal, as trading fairly to achieve your goal.
Maybe I would use those strategies if they had no further consequences (many currently unforeseen and unforseeable - but included the foreseeable one that I will create an unnecessary enemy, who will hunt me down or look for opportunities to do likewise to me). I did use those strategies as a child, but I learned that in the long run there's a lot more to lose (even if you do gain something in the short term), and immorality just never pays off.
But this is clearly a false premise, goals must be made common, and this requires the ethics of sharing, and assisting.
No it doesn't require any ethics. This is included in the nature of human goals itself. They don't arise in isolation. You don't have X and Y goals in isolation of your community. Say your goal is to get buff at the gym - why do you want that? Oh because you want to attract the girls. How does that relate necessarily with other goals? Well the owner of the gym for once wants you to have that goal so that you can buy his service. The girls are also looking for buff guys so they want you to go to the gym. And so forth. It's not hard to see that any goal that you have is communal as it makes reference and necessarily inter-relates with other goals. Goals are necessarily communal, unless you're a Robinson Crusoe, and even then they end up becoming communal.
unenlightenedJanuary 24, 2017 at 15:32#496260 likes
Parliament has an obligation to honour the result. The Conservatives were elected on the basis that they'd offer an in-out referendum on the EU, and that the result would be honoured.
Then the Conservatives have that obligation. The opposition are also the parliament, and they have an obligation to oppose the government where necessary. And because MPs are representatives and not delegates, each MP, including the Conservatives, has the obligation to consult his or her conscience on such matters.
The ghost of Christmas past appeared to Mr Turtlehead and showed him an urn.
"So small an urn contains all my ashes?" asked Mr Turtlehead.
"It contains a flowering cactus planted by the Greek grocer." said the ghost.
Mr Turtlehead tried to make a space between himself and the urn as the ghost looked away.
Mr Turtlehead sighed and thought about walking out to the pines.
"I would so love to be close to nature." he announced.
The bartender looked up at him and smiled.
The falseness of it mingled with the aroma of mold and death.
The Conservatives were elected on the basis that they'd offer an in-out referendum on the EU
Well, not necessarily. It was certainly part of the manifesto, but it doesn't then follow that they were elected for that alone. Maybe they would have been elected even without that commitment.
Mr Turtlehead turned out the light and let his fingertips brush over the bible.
But it was no use.
Kicked and scolded like a dog all his life,
He could hardly breathe.
He thought of an antique chair.
"Wasn't that black lacquer?" he wondered.
But as he closed his eyes nothing changed.
His soul was the sound of oblivion.
Okay I didn't mean useless in the sense an object is useless - but useless in the sense that an activity is useless. As in why are you composing it? Just for play?
Honestly, the first time I composed poetry, I was working at AT&T and my stomach was hurting. I wrote out how I felt... no attempt to be poetic, just straight how it felt.
I came back to my desk and realized I'd left it out. It was about snakes in my stomach and on and on... I got a composition book so I'd remember next time to conceal the truth.
Reply to Mongrel I mean I had been forced before that to write poetry at school, and so I knew I was good at it, at least compared to most other people in my class, so I felt confident doing it. But that was the first time I wrote for myself and my own purposes so to speak.
Mr Turtlehead had not been blind at birth.
An unconscious yearning floated below the waves.
He wanted someone to say that he'd been tortured to blindness,
So he could deny that anyone can see.
Mr Turtlehead imagined that his face must be purple
when dragon fumes of practiced rage shook his jowls.
"You're as impotent as I am!" he shouted,
Pale as a ghost.
His favorite topic was his right to public funds.
Nowhere, even in the basement, was there any trace of the truth:
That he was eating murder
and famine.
You should write one now. Just about how you feel.
That's what meditation is for :P (becoming aware of how you feel)
But yes, I don't "do" free-style poetry. In my view/opinion, poetry isn't merely a passive endeavour where you write about things as they are - that puts you in the position of passive observer of a reality external to you - it's too Cartesian for my tastes. Poetry instead is the creative appropriation/engagement with reality - as such it is a proper form of art. In doing poetry one realises experientially that we are always already engaged with reality creatively.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 24, 2017 at 20:30#496820 likes
Reply to Agustino You don't seem to understand the difference between a communal goal, which means a group of people having the very same goal, and a group of people who each have different goals, but use each other to help achieve their various goals. You keep giving examples of the latter, individuals who have distinctly different goals, who use each other to achieve their various goals, and you claim that these are communal goals. That a person's goal is related to another person's goal does not make it a communal goal. Otherwise the rapist's claim "she wanted it" would be true.
No, I'm making a more significant point. Our goals are always communal to begin with.
I understand a communal goal as a common goal within a community. You understand a communal goal as a goal of an individual who exists within the context of a community. So all goals are communal goals in your understanding because all people live in the context of a community.
How does that get you off the charge of selfishness when someone is seeking to fulfill a goal? The fact that it is a communal goal is irrelevant, because all goals are communal goals.
How does that get you off the charge of selfishness when someone is seeking to fulfill a goal? The fact that it is a communal goal is irrelevant, because all goals are communal goals.
I should've made it clear that all reasonable goals are communal goals - irrational goals like jumping off a building and so forth clearly aren't.
unenlightenedJanuary 24, 2017 at 21:49#496920 likes
An irrational goal is one that is scored from an offside position, but the ref didn't see it.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 24, 2017 at 21:59#496940 likes
Reply to Agustino OK, so now we approach the issue. Some goals are reasonable, and others are not. You think politics should be involved solely with fulfilling goals (realpolitik). I think that politics should be involved with determining which goals are reasonable. Do you assume that the politician automatically knows already which goals are and are not reasonable?
OK, so now we approach the issue. Some goals are reasonable, and others are not. You think politics should be involved solely with fulfilling goals (realpolitik). I think that politics should be involved with determining which goals are reasonable. Do you assume that the politician automatically knows already which goals are and are not reasonable?
Sure, so? I presume that we're talking about reasonable goals, and not goals like committing suicide and so forth. Now I'm most certain we disagree about what reasonable means, for I see nothing unreasonable in Trump's politics. Reasonable doesn't mean virtuous. It means that they make sense. Suicide, in most circumstances doesn't make sense. Building a wall on the Mexican border to stop illegal immigration certainly does make sense - it is reasonable. Whether it's ethical or not that's a different story, but Realpolitik doesn't deal with ethics, that I remind you once again.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 24, 2017 at 22:56#497050 likes
Reply to Agustino Not only would you and I disagree on what reasonable is, I notice that politicians disagree on this as well. What "makes sense" to some doesn't to others. So if realpolitik concerns itself with finding ways to achieve goals, and these goals do not necessarily make sense to others, instead of seeking reconciliation, or compromise, with the others, how is this not selfishness?
Whether it's ethical or not that's a different story, but Realpolitik doesn't deal with ethics, that I remind you once again.
I see no reason to exclude ethics here. A goal which appears to be reasonable to one person, may be excluded as unreasonable by another, on the basis of it being perceived as unethical. Do you not think that unethical qualifies as unreasonable? Or do you think that the realpolitik should pursue unethical goals because being unethical doesn't mean that it is unreasonable?
So if realpolitik concerns itself with finding ways to achieve goals, and these goals do not necessarily make sense to others, instead of seeking reconciliation, or compromise, with the others, how is this not selfishness?
This is so naive it's hardly worth refuting. In strategy, there is no such thing as the perfect strategy, or the only right response. There are many possible right responses, and we lack the resources and capacity to determine which is the single best one. So the political struggle is largely for the implementation of one of the many right responses while out-maneuvering your opponents who are trying to implement theirs. Seeking compromise doesn't make sense - compromise isn't possible, since the right course of action cannot be determined. Furthermore, not acting can be worse than acting in the wrong manner (depending of course on a multitude of circumstances).
A goal which appears to be reasonable to one person, may be excluded as unreasonable by another, on the basis of it being perceived as unethical.
.......... I haven't used reasonable in this sense at all. I used reasonable the way reasonable is used when discussing strategy. A series of strategies are reasonable - not all can be implemented, and we don't know which, if any, are the best.
There are many possible right responses, and we lack the resources and capacity to determine which is the single best one.
There is no such lack of resources, and capacity to determine. That's the excuse of a quitter. What you express is weakness, lack of ambition, lack of will and determination.
Seeking compromise doesn't make sense - compromise isn't possible, since the right course of action cannot be determined.
So whines the quitter... "it can't be done, it can't be done". When I hear that on my job site I have to step in there and show them how it's done.
What a turn of events. You've been arguing strategies for achieving goals, now suddenly you're whining, "...we lack the resources and capacity". Seems I have to go back to my original charge, you're nothing more than opportunistic, shaping your goals according to the situation. How can I make you see that you're just spouting nonsense? "Compromise isn't possible" because "we lack the resources and capacity". What a load of shit. All you've expressed is an unwillingness to compromise.
TheWillowOfDarknessJanuary 25, 2017 at 00:33#497390 likes
Oh indeed, but the thing about imaginary death is that it's not death. It's only pretend. In some cases, I don't doubt the mind has associated imaginary death with consumption. Imaginary death is not contrary to life. If one is only imagining death, it doesn't make sense to think one will no longer living. To do so would be to confuse fantasy with reality, not in the sense of the hyperreal, but rather to think one was dead if you merely imagined it.
I don't think the "why" question is particularly fruitful. It strikes me more a question of causality than anything. The right person, in the right circumstances, which then generates a particular association. No doubt some people might have responses with an origin which could be described in terms of goal seeking, but I suspect their is a great variety in such reasons and causal relationships involved.
More to the point, all associations in the mind come down to a brute link of identity, so I think the "why" question is without an answer. Even if we find some who's responses fit a "why" narrative, one is still left with the association of logical objects themselves. I mean why hold a fantasy of consumption to remove the uncertainty of the body? One could imagine just about anything to do this. Not only are their other ways of removing the body, such as imagining it is gone or present in a location outside the world, but one could be come consumed in a fantasy of just about anything to get their mind off being a body in the world. Why consumption? Well, there's really no more of an answer than the presence of that fantasy itself.
Here "why" is a bit of an ad hoc rationalisation for a world which doesn't make sense to someone, an attempt to shove a meaning that appears absurd into something which makes sense, rather than recognise it as its own. The fantasy is its own state and its own end, not something there to achieve something else entirely. Like any part of the world, a fantasy of being consumed is intelligible.
Agustino:Well, one of my favorite political philosophers, Eric Voegelin, has a dictum - "Don't immanentize the eschaton!" The eschaton is taken to be, in his political philosophy, the state of the end times - the end of history (which is an ideal/transcendent, and can never actually be real within history - indeed that would be nonsensical). So Communists for example seek to immanentize the eschaton because they seek to bring their utopia into reality, and precisely this leads to totalitarianism, as reality never has the stability they demand of their utopia. And indeed he proceeds along those lines to critique all ideology, including a large number of philosophers, including, for example, Hegel. So folks like Punshhh and John would probably float dangerously close to being accused of immanentising Substance in the other thread - in the sense of making the logical, into the empirical, and the infinite, into finite - failing to recognise the distinction that Substance is precisely that which is NOT empirical.
I don't think I've encounter him before. He's right about that. History never ends. I think it's relevance is limited to political goals though. Maybe it's a reflection of the naive political arguments of "everyone equal," "everyone free" or "everyone the same," since they only allude to some logical concept that never exists or really defined substantially (can we even call that "political philosophy?"). Political philosophers, to one degree of another, usually deal finite to some degree. Indeed, that's what they seek.
The Communist, for example, isn't trying to create utopia. They are trying to define a system of property and wealth organisation for the finite world. What leads to totalitarianism is the failure of the finite world to meet the finite political goal. When the attempted organisation of such a world fails, it falls into totalitarianism as those in charge try to force it into their liking, whether it be to the political organisation or a possession of wealth and power for their own greed. I think there is a bit of a tendency to reduce ideology to seeking "the end of history," most likely because philosophy (and its ideology) tends to be obsessed with totalising. In many cases, I think it missed that arguments which speak about the "end of history" really have a finite concern--e.g. Modernism is really about a technically driven society in history, Liberalism really concerned with particular freedoms of thought and action in history, Punshhh and John's mysticism is about the wonder of the transformative mystical experience in history, etc. In each case, the fantasy is a means of instituting or protecting a practice within the finite world. The "end of history" is sort of about making any other possibilities actions or beliefs unthinkable.
Agustino:On a similar note, I think fantasy (the Un-real, the imaginary) must be enjoyed qua fantasy. As you say the consumption must be an imaginary consumption - indeed it would be a fall into psychological disorder if the person tries to immanentize their fantasy - to make their fantasy real by for example actually arranging to be physically consumed (cannibalism). This necessitates that the boundary between fantasy and reality be maintained - that the fantasy be enjoyed qua fantasy. If this boundary is blurred, then the psychological health of the individual deteriorates. If this is avoided (immanentizing the fantasy) then fantasy can play a fulfilling role in the lives of people, even of married people - there's nothing wrong with role-playing, it's actually good, I'd recommend it to all married people
We are always role-playing. The thing about identity (in the social/personal sense) is that it's a fantasy. Not body or state of body, but a comprehension of a totality, marking a significance in the world, which holds outside particular finite states.
It's not so much "psychological health" that's at stake, but ethical behaviour and living. For a living person to arrange to be eaten doesn't necessarily involve delusion (they might know they will die), but it does involve unethical death and consumption of their body. Such a delusion itself (e.g. I will not die if I'm eaten) doesn't really have much of a consequence. It's only someone being wrong about one particular fact.
"Mental illness" is a fantasy. Not becasue people don't have problems in how they think or their brain works, but rather because it's an identity, a fantasy which is not an identification of something of mind or behaviour that ought not be there, but a way of conceiving a person in totality, of giving them a significance that marks them outside of any danger or threat a mental problem might express.
It's a fantasy where the boundary between it and reality is frequently ignored. The fantasy of "mental illness" or "psychological health" gets used in substitution for what's happening in the world (e.g. someone getting another person to eat them, having a particular delusion, etc.).
There is no such lack of resources, and capacity to determine. That's the excuse of a quitter. What you express is weakness, lack of ambition, lack of will and determination.
Even on a fucking chessboard you can't determine what the best course of action will be (at least until towards the end-game), and there's a finite number of possibilities there. How much better will you fare in reality where the possibilities are even more vast? >:O
now suddenly you're whining, "...we lack the resources and capacity".
No I'm not whining, I'm recognising our limitations, and that strategic situations are intractable - you cannot calculate what the absolute best thing to do is, there's always going to be room for doubt. Only a fool will deceive themselves that it's otherwise.
Oligarchy then degenerates into democracy where freedom is the supreme good but freedom is also slavery. In democracy, the lower class grows bigger and bigger. The poor become the winners. People are free to do what they want and live how they want. People can even break the law if they so choose. This appears to be very similar to anarchy.
Plato uses the "democratic man" to represent democracy. The democratic man is the son of the oligarchic man. Unlike his father, the democratic man is consumed with unnecessary desires. Plato describes necessary desires as desires that we have out of instinct or desires that we have in order to survive. Unnecessary desires are desires we can teach ourselves to resist such as the desire for riches. The democratic man takes great interest in all the things he can buy with his money. He does whatever he wants whenever he wants to do it. His life has no order or priority
Even on a fucking chessboard you can't determine what the best course of action will be (at least until towards the end-game), and there's a finite number of possibilities there. How much better will you fare in reality where the possibilities are even more vast? >:O
What you express is nothing but sheer stupidity.
It's you who's implied that we need to determine "the best" course of action in order to compromise. That's where the stupidity lies. Doesn't "compromise" imply the exact opposite? Check your logic, this is what you argued: Compromise doesn't make sense because we cannot determine "the right course of action". We cannot determine "the right" course of action because we haven't the capacity to determine "the best" course of action.
See, you've define "the best" as something impossible. Then you equated "the right" with "the best", so that "the right" is now impossible. This leaves you, always wrong, by your own logic. Do you desire to dwell in that position, of being always wrong?
I'm just trying to point out to you Agustino, that you're trying to defend an untenable position. It's untenable because it's irrational, based in contradiction. You have said that realpolitik focuses on achieving goals. That is a description of human activity. Then you said that it is above, or beyond, unrelated to, moral ethics. But moral ethics is involved in judging the right or wrong of human activity. Therefore you have implied that there is human activity which cannot be judged for right or wrong. You can make that assertion to me, as many times as you want, now go convince the judge. Your assertions, "I'm engaged in activity which cannot be judged for right or wrong", will make a fine defence, when you've just demonstrated that you're always wrong.;
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 25, 2017 at 12:39#498020 likes
No, even if so, that wouldn't follow. It could begin as just the property of one mind, and go on to become communal and unselfish.
That's exactly the point I'm making. We need to go through the procedure of making a personal goal into a communal goal, before actually acting directly on fulfilling the goal, in order that our activities are not selfish. This procedure consists of establishing compatibility with the goals of others, compromise etc..
Edit: Agustino argued that all goals are naturally communal goals.
See, you've define "the best" as something impossible. Then you equated "the right" with "the best", so that "the right" is now impossible. This leaves you, always wrong, by your own logic. Do you desire to dwell in that position, of being always wrong?
No that's your misrepresentation. The best doesn't exist. The right is a set of possible moves. If you have one of those moves, then go out and seek to implement it, nothing to be compromising about.
It seems your irrational attachment to democracy is getting the best of your reason.
You have said that realpolitik focuses on achieving goals. That is a description of human activity. Then you said that it is above, or beyond, unrelated to, moral ethics. But moral ethics is involved in judging the right or wrong of human activity. Therefore you have implied that there is human activity which cannot be judged for right or wrong.
It's kind of boring to deal with repetitive misrepresentations. Realpolitik is a means of achieving goals (speaking here only of rational goals - those which increase power - not irrational and self-destructive goals like cutting your head off, or being eaten alive). Realpolitik is unrelated to ethics, in that one can uphold realpolitik without being ethical. Moral ethics may be involved in judging what is morally right or wrong, but what does that have to do with Realpolitik again? Yes, the actions of Realpolitik can be judged to be right or wrong, morally speaking, so?! What the hell is your point? You don't even know what you're talking about. As Trump said... >:O
It doesn't. A goal could be set by a group vote, for example. That would be when it begins it's existence as a goal, rather than, say, a suggestion.
More important than that - who gives a shit how a goal begins? :s All that matters is whether the goal functions constructively in society or destructively. MU doesn't even know what he's talking about.
Reply to Sapientia Nobody against Trump mate because democracy is oppressive, and if you say you are pro Trump you get bullied for it. Imagine being surrounded by such a big crowd - you always risk being the only one in that position, and thus being excluded. The media built this anti-Trump atmosphere.
Then the Conservatives have that obligation. The opposition are also the parliament, and they have an obligation to oppose the government where necessary. And because MPs are representatives and not delegates, each MP, including the Conservatives, has the obligation to consult his or her conscience on such matters.
Yeah, good points. Anyway, I've just found out that the Brexit ruling doesn't effect whether or not we'll actually leave the EU, but rather [I]how[/I] we'll go about it. So it'll be honoured either way. So I'm pleased with this result which means that the Tory government doesn't get to dictate the terms.
Goals are always already common by virtue of others being interested in some way in them.
Why do you two keep coming out with these obviously false statements? What, so there can be no such thing as a private individual goal that no one else is interested in?
Well, not necessarily. It was certainly part of the manifesto, but it doesn't then follow that they were elected for that alone. Maybe they would have been elected even without that commitment.
Yes, not necessarily, and yes, that doesn't follow. But neither of those is what I claimed or implied.
Yes, they might have been elected without that commitment. But lots of people voted for them because of that commitment.
I called it slime because, just like slime, it seems useless :P
It only seems useless to people who don't know about slimecraft: the ancient art of crafting useful objects out of slime. It's one of my favourite activities, and I dedicate much of my time towards it. In fact, whenever I'm not on here, I'm slimecrafting. I crafted all of the furniture for my flat out of slime, and my flat itself was constructed out of slime. I once produced an almost exact replica of the Mona Lisa, made entirely out of slime.
More important than that - who gives a shit how a goal begins? :s
Well, you two seemed to care enough to argue over it, and I've gotten myself involved, too. But yeah, it does seem kinda trivial. I just like sticking my oar in to let people know when they're wrong. X-)
Why must we include South Beach in that example? :s
I have a feeling that lone weigh station just before the state line in the middle of the desert between Arizona and California would be a LOT busier if your scenario was carried out. (N)
Realpolitik is a means of achieving goals (speaking here only of rational goals - those which increase power - not irrational and self-destructive goals like cutting your head off, or being eaten alive).
So, how is increasing the power of the unethical a rational goal?
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 26, 2017 at 01:49#500080 likes
My focus has been much more on history and politics for quite some time, but I'm going to look into the philosophy of Spinoza (again, but more deeply this time), particularly as it relates to God. And I'm in the middle of watching videos about him now.
Leibniz visited Spinoza as a young man, and said "He has a strange metaphysics, full of paradoxes. He thinks that God and the world are one thing, and that all created things are only modes of God".
It is a proposal, but for the person who's proposing it, it's a goal, or else there'd be no proposal. To the others it's just a proposal.
No, that's not right. The only part of that fist sentence you got right is the part where you say "it is a proposal".
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 26, 2017 at 03:11#500220 likes
Reply to Sapientia I don't see how you can say that. Suppose some man wants to get married, and makes a proposal to his girlfriend. Is getting married to her not his goal prior to making the proposal? Why do you think that the proposal must be carried out before there is a goal? That makes no sense. You make a proposal when there is something that you want, and this is a goal. So a goal exists, within the mind of the one proposing, prior to the proposal.
Yes you've demonstrated that quite well, the unethical may uphold realpolitik.
As can the ethical for that matter - that's why Realpolitik is independent of ethics - if this wasn't the case, we couldn't say Realpolitik is independent of ethics.
Increasing power is a reasonable goal - it makes no reference to unethical or ethical. These are additional considerations.
Obviously, increasing power to the unethical is unreasonable. So as much as the will to be ethical is not the same as the will to have power, one must have as a goal, to be ethical, in order that one's goal to increase power is rational. Therefore a goal to increase power, which is not accompanied by a goal to be ethical is irrational.
Do you understand that goals always exist in relation to other goals? We talk about means to ends, but ends are always the means to further ends. The goal of "increasing power", on its own is irrational, because power is inherently a means. It's very similar to the goal of increasing wealth. Money is inherently a means. So to have the goal of amassing money, simply for the sake of amassing money, with no further purpose for having that money, is irrational. It's a mental illness, just like having the goal of increasing power for no purpose other than to increase power, is a mental illness.
Why must we include South Beach in that example? :s
I have a feeling that lone weigh station just before the state line in the middle of the desert between Arizona and California would be a LOT busier if your scenario was carried out. (N)
I've never been to South Beach. Is it cool? I don't think they have the delivery system to reach the US yet. I keep thinking: why isn't this an Asian problem? How the hell does it become an American problem?
Obviously, increasing power to the unethical is unreasonable. So as much as the will to be ethical is not the same as the will to have power, one must have as a goal, to be ethical, in order that one's goal to increase power is rational. Therefore a goal to increase power, which is not accompanied by a goal to be ethical is irrational.
This is full of your own assumptions. A being naturally seeks the increase of its own power (and by extension the power of its community, because its power, is, ultimately, an expression of the community's power). Therefore a goal of increasing power is reasonable.
You certainly do, otherwise why dislike Trump's administration?
Did I claim that? Regardless, Trump was elected democratically wasn't he? How would a dislike of his administration, indicate that I am attached to democracy? To me it would indicate the opposite, that I see failings in democracy. And how would seeing failings in one form of government indicate to you that I have a preference for another form? None of what you say ever makes any sense. You seem to use some type of twisted self-serving logic, where you just make up random assumptions to rationalize your irrational thoughts.
No, I believe in an ultimate end, an absolute, but absolutes are difficult to define. You cannot be a quitter when looking for the absolute. We can say without a doubt though, that power is not an ultimate end. It is defined as a means. So anything which is classed as a power is necessarily a means and therefore cannot be the ultimate end. Sorry to have to disillusion you.
Suppose some man wants to get married, and makes a proposal to his girlfriend. Is getting married to her not his goal prior to making the proposal?
Yes, probably, but that example isn't representative of all such cases, so it doesn't prove your point. Not only is it not impossible to have a proposal which isn't a goal for those involved, it is not out of the ordinary.
Why do you think that the proposal must be carried out before there is a goal?
In all cases in which what is proposed is not already a goal, in order to be a goal, and not just a proposal, it must obviously become one in some way. One way could be by group vote.
It would be silly to assume that the proposal is already a goal, or a goal in a different sense or context, since that need not be the case and would miss the point.
You make a proposal when there is something that you want, and this is a goal. So a goal exists, within the mind of the one proposing, prior to the proposal.
No, a goal isn't merely something that you want, so your argument is bound to fail from the start.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 26, 2017 at 17:12#501340 likes
Yes, probably, but that example isn't representative of all such cases, so it doesn't prove your point. Not only is it not impossible to have a proposal which isn't a goal for those involved, it is not out of the ordinary.
I would certainly say that it is very possible to put forward a proposal which is not necessarily a goal. If I implied otherwise, then I made a mistake. But I think what is the question here is whether a proposal can follow from a goal. If so then goals may be selfish.
In all cases in which what is proposed is not already a goal, in order to be a goal, and not just a proposal, it must obviously become one in some way. One way could be by group vote.
What is at issue is the accusations of selfishness which I directed toward Agustino. So you may talk about goals which come about through the means of a group vote, all you want, but that's not the type of goal which I am talking about. Nor is it the type of goal which Agustino is talking about, because that type of goal, which you are talking about, comes into existence through the observance of some ethical principles (following a vote). Agustino is talking about goals which have no respect for, nor relation to, ethical principles.
No, a goal isn't merely something that you want, so your argument is bound to fail from the start.
I am not arguing that the selfish goal is the only type of goal that there is, I am arguing that the selfish goal is a type of goal. So if Agustino wants to set a particular type of goal off, distinguish it from the selfish goal, as you have done with the type of goal which comes into existence from a group vote, then Agustino needs to describe how that goal is other than a selfish goal. Agustino claims that it is a rational goal, but I don't think that claim has been justified.
I'm making assumptions? "A being naturally seeks the increase of its power..."? You're piling it high today.
How about you read some Nietzsche or Spinoza? :-d Maybe if you actually spent your time reading philosophy rather than just blabbering what comes to your mouth without thinking about it, you'd see more nuance in these positions.
As I said, it's mental illness, therefore irrational.
No I don't think a strong love for money or power is a mental illness, nor is it classified like this for the most part. Do you think, for example, Hitler was mentally ill? He was evil, I grant you that, but mentally ill - I doubt it. Someone who is mentally ill doesn't have what it takes to achieve power - mental illness is being dysfunctional - not having superior functionality. Although I will say that what is superior in one situation is inferior in another - indeed this is part of strategy.
Agustino is talking about goals which have no respect for, nor relation to, ethical principles.
This is flat out wrong. I'm talking about goals which have no necessary relationship with ethics. For example, I can desire to become the Emperor of China to make China a great, strong and flourishing country, or I can desire to become Emperor of China in order to satisfy my own ego. Clearly it's the same goal, with different ethical principles behind it.
If you voted for Obama, like that thugs on the street, then you're one of them :-d How can you listen to this bullshit?
On another note - yes I am strongly against all those feminazi and their crazyiness with regards to abortion and birth control. Life is sacred, and these prostitutes who want to have sex without recognising its possible consequences should be out of civilised society. We're not fucking barbarians. We should all be responsible for our actions, AND held accountable. You want to have sex, you have to be accountable for it. That's how life is. You don't like it, no problem, out to the jungle you go. And take the other nutjobs with you please.
Anyway, conservatives have been bullied by these crazyies for long enough - it's payback time. Ain't this actually great, to see the progressives finally humiliated? After such a long struggle that conservatives had to bear, to be humiliated day in and day out, and live in their own world as outcasts, we're finally back, bigger and better and stronger than ever before as Trump would say. That, I think, is a great testament to the strength of the conservative spirit. And unlike some more moderate conservatives, I don't think we should show any mercy to those progressives - they certainly showed us no mercy. Politics is politics, and they have lost, and therefore have to bear their defeat - they wanted to play this game, from the very beginning they sought to take the world and make it theirs, and destroy conservatives. Fools we will be if we spare them now.
Reply to Agustino Why not? And what jungle are you talking about? The Congo? The Amazon? Specify, dude. I might want to go if you're paying for the trip.
Why won't they survive? Because they have a very thin skin - just take their abortions away, and it's the end for them. End of the world >:O - they'll go naked in the street to protest...
I don't think a strong love for money or power is a mental illness
It isn't the strong love for money or power that I classed as mental illness, it is the desire for money or power for the sake of itself, that I classed that way. Which is what you were describing, power for the sake of power. Many people have a love of money or power for various reasons, whether they are selfish reasons or otherwise is another issue. But If you amass money or power just for the sake of amassing money or power, this I would class as mental illness..
Yes you did. You claimed that the desire to increase one's power is good in itself. Therefore your claim is that it is not sought for any other purpose, but for itself, because it is good. That makes it an ultimate end.
This is flat out wrong. I'm talking about goals which have no necessary relationship with ethics. For example, I can desire to become the Emperor of China to make China a great, strong and flourishing country, or I can desire to become Emperor of China in order to satisfy my own ego. Clearly it's the same goal, with different ethical principles behind it.
As I've been trying to tell you, a goal with no relationship to ethics is nonsense. If the same goal can be related to different ethical principles, this in no way demonstrates that a goal can have no relationship to ethics at all.
As I've been trying to tell you, a goal with no relationship to ethics is nonsense. If the same goal can be related to different ethical principles, this in no way demonstrates that a goal can have no relationship to ethics at all.
I never claimed a goal has no relationship to ethics. Neither did I claim that Realpolitik negates ethics. Rather I claimed that it is independent of ethics. An ethical person can adopt Realpolitik as much as an unethical person.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 26, 2017 at 22:03#501910 likes
Ah, so you're arguing that a selfish goal is a type of goal, huh? I thought that it was a type of fish.
I get the impression that that's about as much as Agustino knows about goals, that they are a type of fish. I kind of had to start from the basics because Agustino insisted that all goals are communal goals.
Cite where you think I claimed this, with context please.
It's been the theme of our entire discussion, your claim that the goal to increase one's power is good in and of itself. You've claimed that numerous times, here's your latest attempt to justify that claim:
I assumed that would be your criticism of him, given your negative views on Trump. If this isn't the case, then why do you view Trump negatively?
I view Trump negatively because you (as well as others) portray him in a negative way. Either your portrayal is wrong, or he really is someone to be viewed negatively.
I never claimed a goal has no relationship to ethics. Neither did I claim that Realpolitik negates ethics. Rather I claimed that it is independent of ethics. An ethical person can adopt Realpolitik as much as an unethical person.
You implied that realpolitik is an activity which proceeds toward fulfilling goals without the requirement of any judgement as to whether the goal is ethical or not. And you seem to be promoting this.
I view Trump negatively because you (as well as others) portray him in a negative way. Either your portrayal is wrong, or he really is someone to be viewed negatively.
You implied that realpolitik is an activity which proceeds toward fulfilling goals without the requirement of any judgement as to whether the goal is ethical or not. And you seem to be promoting this.
Yes. The user of Realpolitik can be either ethical or non-ethical, Realpolitik still works in both cases.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 26, 2017 at 22:53#502100 likes
Where do I mention anything about goodness here? :s You are just equivocating between reasonable and good.
I didn't say "good" either. I said that it's sought for the sake of itself, therefore it's an ultimate end. As an ultimate end, I think I demonstrated that it is unreasonable. Therefore I think you're wrong in your claim that it's reasonable
Yes. The user of Realpolitik can be either ethical or non-ethical, Realpolitik still works in both cases.
So, do you think that realpolitik is good then? Do you think that it is good to proceed toward fulfilling
goals without any judgement as to whether the goals are ethical or non-ethical?
You describe Trump as someone who may subscribe to the principles of realpolitik. You describe realpolitik as something which to my judgement is bad. Therefore in my eyes you paint a negative picture of him.
Do you think that it is good to proceed toward fulfilling
goals without any judgement as to whether the goals are ethical or non-ethical?
That would depend on whether the goal actually is ethical or not, regardless of what you think or do not think about it.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 27, 2017 at 00:21#502420 likes
Reply to Agustino Unlike you, I think that barging ahead to fulfill a goal, without first determining whether the goal is good or bad, is itself bad. We refer to this vice as being "rash".
Unlike you, I think that barging ahead to fulfill a goal, without first determining whether the goal is good or bad, is itself bad. We refer to this vice as being "rash".
So it is impossible for the goal to be good if you don't determine whether it is good or not? :s
I agree about the vice.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 27, 2017 at 03:23#502960 likes
Reply to Agustino The goal may or may not be good, it's rash to proceed without determining whether it is.
The goal may or may not be good, it's rash to proceed without determining whether it is.
I agree with that. But again, so what? It doesn't change the nature of Realpolitik, neither does it imply that Realpolitik is selfish, anymore than owning a gun is selfish. Realpolitik is a tool - it depends to what ends it will be used for.
I took a survey on free will and responsibility and one of the questions was "how responsible are you for losing a game of chess?". That one had me stuck.
It doesn't change the nature of Realpolitik, neither does it imply that Realpolitik is selfish, anymore than owning a gun is selfish. Realpolitik is a tool - it depends to what ends it will be used for.
We can say that it's not good for a rash person to be holding a gun.
Realpolitik, as you describe it, has the same description as "rash". And rash is a vice. Therefore realpolitik is not good.
Not necessarily. It can be rash, but it can also not be rash. It depends on the one who uses it, just like a gun.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 27, 2017 at 13:03#503640 likes
Reply to Agustino
Yes necessarily. "Rash" is usually assigned to the character of a person. and it doesn't matter who has that character, if you have it, you are rash. In this case it is assigned to the character of realpolitik, realpolitik is rash. So it doesn't matter who uses it, they are acting according to the characteristics of a rash person.
Yes necessarily. "Rash" is usually assigned to the character of a person. and it doesn't matter who has that character, if you have it, you are rash. In this case it is assigned to the character of realpolitik, realpolitik is rash. So it doesn't matter who uses it, they are acting according to the characteristics of a rash person.
So if a non-rash person uses it? :-d
If Realpolitik is the gun, then the user is the one who can either be responsible or irresponsible. Likewise it's the user - NOOOOOT Realpolitik that is either rash or non-rash.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover I thought 'realpolitik' meant "a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations." Why would practical considerations be more rash than moral or ideological ones?
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 27, 2017 at 13:18#503690 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank All I know about realpolitik is what Agustino described to me in this thread, with a little bit of background hearsay, which Agustino corrected me on. So I'm just going on Agustino's description.
Anyway, I don't think it is possible to have a system of politics or principles free from ideological considerations. A "principle" itself is an ideal, so we'd have a contradiction there.
If Realpolitik is the gun, then the user is the one who can either be responsible or irresponsible. Likewise it's the user - NOOOOOT Realpolitik that is either rash or non-rash.
As you described it, realpolitik is a view toward action. Therefore it is not like the gun itself, it is how one intends to use the gun, a behaviour.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 27, 2017 at 13:36#503700 likes
Why would practical considerations be more rash than moral or ideological ones?
Sorry I didn't answer your question. Realpolotik has been described as a view toward action which does not consider moral principles before acting. This fits the description of being rash. In other words, there are concerns other than practical concerns, such as moral concerns, which should be considered prior to acting.
Yes. The user of Realpolitik can be either ethical or non-ethical, Realpolitik still works in both cases.
I don't see why you have to interpret me so uncharitably. I never said Realpolitik repudiates ethics or is contrary to ethics, or considers ethics irrelevant... I said Realpolitik makes no reference to ethics.
Reply to Bitter Crank
I think notion is too ambiguous.
Politics deals with ideologies and ethics, I don't see how you can separate these things from politics.
So to me it makes no sense to say realpolitik disregards these things in favor of being practical.
Because politics deals with these things it would not be practical to disregard ideologies and ethics.
Maybe the term aims at putting aside differences in ideologies and ethics to accomplish a political goal, but we already have a term for this, we call it compromising.
A good read. Time to bite my tongue and just take out the popcorn? Just sit back and watch the enablers and 'flying monkeys'?
So according to point (2), May was suckered in by Trump, who will again turn on NATO when he feels like it. We ought point out the inconsistencies as they happen, in order to challenge his supporters. They can't effectively challenge or criticise, but can only walk away.
The marchers that so enraged him by being bigger than his inauguration set themselves up as targets; so we can expect further assaults on the rights of women.
He will dispose of his 'acquisition', Melania, soon. He will continue sacking anyone who attempts to advise him of things contrary to his desires. He can't distinguish between, for example, the reality of climate change and his desire that it not be so. He will soon turn on his close advisers, purging them when they cannot deliver his incoherent desires.
Assembly line abortions *cough cough* ... Tinder lifestyles *cough cough* X-) We all know what the truth is behind those empty abstractions Banno, you ain't fooling no one ;)
"The election of President Donald Trump has proven that numerous Christians are more worried about power, influence, and control than the gospel messages of humility, generosity, ministering to others, and love."
"The election of President Donald Trump has proven that numerous Christians are more worried about power, influence, and control than the gospel messages of humility, generosity, ministering to others, and love."
>:O >:O >:O >:O
Yes, because it's all about charity towards the devil. Have you forgotten when Jesus chased the money changers out of the temple with the whip and forcefully overturned their tables? Maybe you should study that a bit and think about it. As I said before, progressives have only one idea of morality - an all encompassing compassion and benevolence for everything, including what is bad! >:O
Yep, what's wrong with that? You're misrepresenting Christianity, and you have a twisted sense of morality. For you, compassion is the whole of morality.
Wife: Let's go out and have some fun tonight.
Husband: Okay, but if you get home before I do, leave the hall light on.
Did you hear about the blond couple that were found frozen in their car in am outdoor movie theater?
They went to see "Closed for the winter."
Q: What did the dick say to the balls?
A: "You guys hang around here while I go inside."
King Arthur was about to embark on a long crusade. Before doing so he called to Merlin to devise a cunning chastity belt for Gwenivere. The belt contained a miniture guillotine.
Upon his return, he called to his Knights of the Round Table and had them all strip from the waist down. One by one, he went to each knight and shook his head, telling all those whose members were missing to get out of his sight.
That is until he came up to Lancelot. Seeing that Lancelot was intact, he exclaimed, ''Now I knew I could count on you to be trusted. Name anything at all and it is yours.''
Lancelot replied '' UNGH!UH! UNGH!'''
The husbands idea of fun does not include his wife.
Maybe. But it can also be that the husband wants the light on the hallway to be on because his wife is fucking another man (for example), and he doesn't want to enter on them >:O . Or it could be a million other possible things. Maybe the husband wants to know she's home so he can keep on partying, or go to the hookers, or who knows? That's why I say I don't get it. It has no clear meaning at all...
Or given the English expression it could be that his wife wants to have sex, and her husband wants to go out - it's so fucking confusing really.......... :-O
Reply to Agustino The shelf life of the joke was about 3.5 seconds. it has died many times over since you read it. Over-thinking jokes is the death of humor.
Never the less... the humor in the joke is derived from the difference between what the wife wants (presumably to go out with her husband and have a good time) and what the husband wants -- to go out without his wife in tow. Like Tinder, your favorite dating site.
Never the less... the humor in the joke is derived from the difference between what the wife wants (presumably to go out with her husband and have a good time) and what the husband wants -- to go out without his wife in tow. Like Tinder, your favorite dating site.
'There is something terribly wrong with playing this game of ironically making fun of Trump. You know, in medicine they call it symptomatic healing, when you take some things, they just neutralize the effects, like you have this pain, but they don’t heal the disease itself. Criticizing Trump is just symptomatic healing. '
Reply to Banno I agree. While I don't agree with Slavoj answer to the "punching question", I actually thought most of that interview was quite insightful -- and my disagreement was a mere preference.
Here's a man who understands Realpolitik. The West should follow his example. That's why we're losing, because our leaders and our media don't know what planet they're living on.
Ah yes, the Russians, those stalwarts of civilisation, whose parliament just voted to decrimialize domestic violence, so long as the victims don't end up in hospital. Why they stopped at hospitalisation, I dont know.
Reply to StreetlightX That's fake news. You know what I understand when I read what you wrote? I understand that Russians have decided to legally permit domestic violence - BUT this is not the case at all. First time domestic violence because a civil offence - punishable by fines, short-term detention and the like. Repeated domestic violence remains punished the same as before. This is probably a pragmatic way to deal with domestic violence problems that Russia has ESPECIALLY with regards to children, as it is the children that get beaten most of the time. But of course, you stick to propaganda, that certainly does you good.
Reply to StreetlightX You know what I think about you SLX? You have a very good intellect, it's just a pity that you sold yourself out to leftism/feminism and the like and have therefore stopped thinking for yourself on those moral/political matters...
Whatever do you mean? I'm a staunch advocate for moar beatings. This is great news for all mankind. Also childrenkind. Who need to be beaten more. Beatings for everyone!
Reply to StreetlightX You're free to be for more beatings but the Russian government certainly isn't, nor does the Russian government think beatings are morally permissible - that's why they still remain legally punishable. :-}
And if I didn't know that you're just playing the fool, I'd say your morality is a bit screwed up. Would you like being a child and getting beaten by your parents? No. So why would you think beating is good?
Beating is awesome! Think of all the discipline! And the moral principles we can instill! Principles! And discipline! Great Things! For A Great Humanity!
Reply to StreetlightX Principles are not instilled by beating people up - quite the contrary, if you beat them up you will instil in them the principle of waiting quietly until you are weak, so they can do the same or worse to you. There's other, more effective forms of punishment than physical violence.
Yes I suppose you're right. Beatings are too valuable to be handed out willy-nilly. One must beat well and beat hard, or not beat at all. This will force us to be creative with punishment. And these are two of my favourite things. Punishment, and creativity. Mostly punishment though. Yes. Principles or punishment. Even the alliteration is good. Less beating, more creative punishment. All the better for principles.
Reply to StreetlightX Discipline is a communal activity that is enforced through mechanisms involving a sense of honour/shame and peer pressure. You have to inculcate in people a sense of honour/shame and also a sense of their own worth as MORAL agents. A disciplined person is a person who sacrifices lower level goods for higher level goods out of his own free will - who sees reason for doing so - who extracts a sense of joy out of his own morality and goodness.
Discipline has nothing to do with physically violent punishment - that builds merely the appearance of discipline, but once the threat is removed, chaos ensues. The punishment Im talking about isn't physical - it's social.
Evol Sonic GooJanuary 28, 2017 at 12:41#506850 likes
I support torture. It works better than petty beatings.
Chaos bad! Sacrifice good! Especially when we ward off chaos with shame. Nothing better than a society full of shame. Keeps things in check. Which is good. Morally, of course. And moral good is very good. But I'm not fussy. Social or physical - as long as there's punishment involved. For moral good. I'll leave the details to you. Although I like shame and peer pressure. A recepie for a joyful, good society.
Reply to StreetlightX This word salad is void of any content at all. Shame and honour are natural human impulses that have to be cultivated along the right lines. If you don't socially cultivate them, they'll still exist but they'll be deformed and crooked.
Reply to StreetlightX So yes SLX, we are to prefer a society in which a husband feels great shame for abandoning his family and is socially disrespected for it, then one in which he feels a sense of honour out of doing it, and is praised for his independence and freedom of spirit
I see from Russia Today, which reports uneasily on the change in domestic violence legislation, that 'The Communist Party faction opposed the bill. MP Yuri Sinelshikov said that, though the change would make life easier for magistrates and investigators, it could lead to a rise in domestic killings and even “make violence inside a family an accepted norm.”'
Still, public opinion in Russia purportedly believes that reducing the punishment for violence will reduce the violence itself.
Yes evol is right. Torture is fantastic. Really great stuff. Gets results quick smart. Especially against dirty radical Islamic terrorists. Who are everywhere. And ready to kill us at any time. Its terrifying.
I see from Russia Today, which reports uneasily on the change in domestic violence legislation, that 'The Communist Party faction opposed the bill. MP Yuri Sinelshikov said that, though the change would make life easier for magistrates and investigators, it could lead to a rise in domestic killings and even “make violence inside a family an accepted norm.”'
Still, public opinion in Russia purportedly believes that reducing the punishment for violence will reduce the violence itself.
True. There's other issues at play. If a neighbour slaps my son for trying to bed his daughter, then he gets fined. If I slap my son, I go to jail. There's an asymmetry there, which has now been removed.
Reply to Agustino If you're certain that someone knows a specific bit of information and if it is judged that no other way will extract said information in a timely manner, then torture can get a pass. However, such a case would be, as I said, rare. The extent, say, that the US has used torture as a means of getting information has been embarrassing.
Reply to Evol Sonic Goo
Or if we have a village suffering of flooding, then we'll solve the flooding problem by destroying the village - great logic >:O
If you're certain that someone knows a specific bit of information and if it is judged that no other way will extract said information in a timely manner, then torture can get a pass. However, such a case would be, as I said, rare. The extent, say, that the US has used torture as a means of getting information has been embarrassing.
I'm not decided on such matters, but I tend to agree.
I've never been to South Beach. Is it cool? I don't think they have the delivery system to reach the US yet. I keep thinking: why isn't this an Asian problem? How the hell does it become an American problem?
South Beach California is gorgeous! During our National BMX riding days, we would spend at least one weekend a year at Chula Vista's Olympic training center and the weather is perfect, the ocean is clean and Mexico is within sight. 8-)
I am not sure why it is that this is an American problem and not an Asian problem but either way we will stand ready.
Yes evol is right. Torture is fantastic. Really great stuff. Gets results quick smart.
What are these "results" in concreto? There is no evidence that people change their behaviour because of torture - in fact, I imagine quite the contrary - they just learn to mask it.
Evol Sonic GooJanuary 28, 2017 at 13:07#507140 likes
Torture is not killing. Killing the subject of torture misses the entire point. Torture gets things done. For example, public shaming is an effective psychological torture. It's gooood!
Torture is not killing. Killing the subject of torture misses the entire point. Torture gets things done. For example, public shaming is an effective psychological torture. It's gooood!
The punishment needs to be proportional to the offence. Punishing a disobedient child who sneaks out of the house at night by torturing him isn't proportionate AT ALL. :-}
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 28, 2017 at 13:08#507170 likes
Non political shout!
I asked the question of my youngest indian whom will graduate High School this year, the same question that many of us have pondered, which was what one book you would save if you could only save one for all time?
His answer shocked me. He answered without hesitation "Wikipedia".
What happened to the Webster's Dictionary or The Bible?
Reply to Evol Sonic Goo If the punishment is not proportional for the offence, it's like treating a bacterial infection of the stomach with chemotherapy. Shall we do that? That's a good idea no?! If chemo therapy is effective against cancer, then it is also effective against bacteria! Great! Such a dumb logic. :-d
The punishment needs to be proportional to the offence. Punishing a disobedient child who sneaks out of the house at night by torturing him isn't proportionate AT ALL.
I'd say that if torture is only intended as a means of punishment, then as I'd argue that it's always unnecessarily immoral :D
Evol Sonic GooJanuary 28, 2017 at 13:13#507220 likes
Just is what works. Kid gets disciplined, all good. Punishment is your thing, not mine. Mine is get things done. Discipline and order.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 28, 2017 at 13:14#507230 likes
WOW! I want to read it just based on the summary. Where was this book when I was reading to them as they went to sleep a decade ago?
I ask you Dr. Seuss: Just how far will they get with "One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish"?
Just is what works. Kid gets disciplined, all good. Punishment is your thing, not mine. Mine is get things done. Discipline and order.
No it's actually not all good at all. There are other psychological effects that are harmful that torture has, including the effects on the torturer himself. :-d That's why I gave you the medicine example.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 28, 2017 at 13:15#507260 likes
You know what I think about you SLX? You have a very good intellect, it's just a pity that you sold yourself out to leftism/feminism and the like and have therefore stopped thinking for yourself on those moral/political matters...
I thought you like to separate political matters from moral matters, by claiming realpolitik. Why do you now put them back together, inconsistency, when it suits your purpose?
Why do you now put them back together, inconsistency, when it suits your purpose?
Because I have a code of ethics that is independent of my adherence to Realpolitik maybe? :-d There's no inconsistency at all there, it's just your completely uncharitable reading that makes it so.
Evol Sonic GooJanuary 28, 2017 at 13:16#507300 likes
What psychological effects? They'll be ashamed in front of the community and they'll learn to behave. All good.
What psychological effects? They'll be ashamed in from of the community and they'll learn to behave. All good.
Are you kidding me? :s Stop playing dumb. They'll not only be ashamed, they'll be fearful, vengeful, angry, hateful, and so forth. Are these good?! *facepalm*
Evol Sonic GooJanuary 28, 2017 at 13:22#507330 likes
No, I'm not kidding you. It's an effective technique of peer pressure. It teaches the subject the sense of honor and shame, turns it into a disciplined moral agent.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 28, 2017 at 13:23#507340 likes
Reply to Agustino Uncharitable reading? You said "moral/political matters" as if moral and political matters are inseparable. Which do you believe, are they separable, as you claim with realpolitik, or are they inseparable as you imply in your common speak?
Trump on Friday put a four-month hold on allowing refugees into the United States and temporarily barred travelers from Syria Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, saying the moves would help protect Americans from terrorist attacks.
A major problem with dumbass's ban is that none, zero, zip of the attacks in the US came from people in these counties. Dumb, explicitly demonstrates his racist intent.
No, I'm not kidding you. It's an effective technique of peer pressure. It teaches the subject the sense of honor and shame, turns it into a disciplined moral agent.
Just like how chemotherapy effectively eliminates my stomach infection right? But why would I use chemotherapy to get rid of my stomach infection, when I could use a floopydoopdy antibiotic? Are you just that dumb?
You said "moral/political matters" as if moral and political matters are inseparable
Yes this is precisely uncharitable. I said moral/political. What does that mean? If you have to translate that slash in a word, what word would it be?! Would it be the word "or" perhaps? So moral OR political matters?
Trump on Friday put a four-month hold on allowing refugees into the United States and temporarily barred travelers from Syria Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, saying the moves would help protect Americans from terrorist attacks.
As far as I'm concerned, that's good. Those countries are too unstable to allow travellers to come in freely.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 28, 2017 at 13:26#507400 likes
Which do you believe, are they separable, as you claim with realpolitik, or are they inseparable as you imply in your common speak?
Morality and politics are obviously two distinct, but interrelated fields.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 28, 2017 at 13:28#507420 likes
Reply to Agustino So you don't believe in realpolitik, which separates them then?
Evol Sonic GooJanuary 28, 2017 at 13:29#507430 likes
I don't know why you would use chemotherapy to get rid of your stomach infection. That does not get things done. Public shaming as a mechanism of peer pressure get things done. People realize their bad ways, get ashamed of being bad, act good, please the community and get a sense of honor. All good.
So you don't believe in realpolitik, which separates them then?
Realpolitik doesn't separate them at all. People holding and adhering to Realpolitik do have ethics, in addition to Realpolitik... I can't flapitidapity understand why you're so clearly and purposefully misrepresenting my position.
Reply to Evol Sonic Goo In fact, if you go to medical school this is the first foodydoody principle you get taught. A cure needs to be proportionate to the gravity of the illness....
Evol Sonic GooJanuary 28, 2017 at 13:31#507470 likes
Feel free to have one when a stomach infection kicks in then.
Feel free to have one when a stomach infection kicks in then.
Why don't you try that for yourself, since it is you, not I, who believes that torture is an adequate cure for a naughty child? You should go do that next time. When you get a stomach infection, head over to your doctor, and tell him you want some chemotherapy to cure it. See if he puts some sense in your head... :-d
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 28, 2017 at 13:33#507490 likes
Realpolitik doesn't separate them at all. People holding and adhering to Realpolitik do have ethics, in addition to Realpolitik... I can't flapitidapity understand why you're so clearly and purposefully misrepresenting my position.
Of course they have ethics, but the point in realpolitik, as you described, is to separate politics from ethics. Why would one separate politics from ethics except fro the sake of political evil?
Of course they have ethics, but the point in realpolitik, as you described, is to separate politics from ethics. Why would one separate politics from ethics except fro the sake of political evil?
No it's not to separate them at all. Rather Realpolitik doesn't deal with ethics. That's not a separation at all. Practitioners of Realpolitik hold their ethics independently of their use of Realpolitik.
Why would one separate politics from ethics except fro the sake of political evil?
Because political effectiveness can be studied independently of studying ethics? :s
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 28, 2017 at 13:35#507520 likes
Reply to Agustino So we have political/moral, and we leave behind the moral, just to deal with the political, and that's not a separation?
Evol Sonic GooJanuary 28, 2017 at 13:35#507530 likes
You see, I believe that public shaming, as torture and peer pressure, instills a sense of honor and shame and disciplines. You believe a chemotherapy get things done when you have a stomach infection, so feel free to have it.
You see, I believe that public shaming, as torture and peer pressure, instills a sense of honor and shame and disciplines.
Right you dumbdumb, and torture is CLEARLY in your floopywoopy big head the only way to instil a sense of honour, shame and discipline, right?! Or is it rather that using torture to instil honour, shame and discipline is by analogy (if you can even understand what that floopinwhoopin is) like using chemotherapy instead of antibiotics to cure a stomach infection?! :-}
I take racism to mean an attitude one has towards one's own citizens. So this action isn't racist at all, as it's not directed towards creating divisions between American Muslims and American non-Muslims.
Exactly. But it's a distinct field of study - the division is purely intellectual, the same way, say, physics is divided from chemistry.
I see, so instead of considering whether an action would be wrong or right, one would consider the prospect of getting punished or rewarded from the action?
Evol Sonic GooJanuary 28, 2017 at 13:42#507640 likes
Since one get things done while the other does not, it's a false analogy.
No it's not a false analogy at all. It's rather you lack of knowledge and your stupidity that makes you think it's a false analogy.
For floophoops's sake, let me explain medicine to you. If you take 5-Fluorouracil (which is a chemical used in treatment of stomach and colon cancer) it kills all living cells, including bacteria in its path. One of the reasons why you feel nauseous, sick, weak, etc. after chemotherapy is in fact that your bacterial flora from your stomach and intestines gets destroyed, and some of those bacteria are actually healthy and needed by your body. Losing them creates a severe imbalance in your body. But just as it kills the good bacteria, it will kill the bad ones - 5-FU makes no difference between which are good and which are bad.
I see, so instead of considering whether an action would be wrong or right, one would consider the prospect of getting punished or rewarded from the action?
Hmmm yes. One would consider its non-moral implications only.
Evol Sonic GooJanuary 28, 2017 at 13:50#507710 likes
Thanks for explaining. Although, I didn't plan to have a chemotherapy for a stomach infection. I don't believe it gets things done. As I said, if you believe it does, feel free to have it.
Thanks for explaining. Although, I didn't plan to have a chemotherapy for a stomach infection. I don't believe it gets things done. As I said, if you believe it does, feel free to have it.
YOU don't believe it gets things done, but you're wrong. And the fact you're still clinging to your WRONG belief after I have explained to you why it is necessarily wrong, that means that you're irrational. The doctors and scientists who study this do believe that it gets things done.
So like you say you're free to be deluded that torture gets things done. Enjoy your delusion. There's no point in discussing with an irrational person.
Indeed the only cure (joking) for you is what Avicenna says:
"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned."
>:O
Evol Sonic GooJanuary 28, 2017 at 13:58#507750 likes
Like I said, since it works for you, enjoy your chemotherapy. Meanwhile, I enjoy your effort to make me feel ashamed by publicly calling me dumbass and all these other names.
Meanwhile, I enjoy your effort to make me feel ashamed by publicly calling me dumbass and all these other names.
There is no answer to the refusal to be reasonable except the ad hominem, as illustrated by Avicenna above. It's not just that you disagree with me, it's that you refuse to be reasonable, even in the face of UNDENIABLE evidence.
Reply to Cavacava America first does mean that American citizens have more rights than the other people of the world though. So long as America remains isolationist, this will be good. But if America starts invading other places, this belief that American citizens have more rights will become pernicious and lead to America's downfall.
The shoutbox is becoming such a swell place. People, please mind your manners. If you're not capable of that disengage from the discussion you're having and turn your attention elsewhere.
Evol Sonic GooJanuary 28, 2017 at 14:11#507820 likes
Yes, since I'm typing, I presume I'm alive. And no, it's not me who is unreasonable.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 28, 2017 at 14:14#507840 likes
Reply to Agustino
Do you believe in God Agustino? Do you think that if a politician does wrong (evil), and gets away with it here on earth, because he/she is the boss, the leader of the country and can do whatever he/she wants, do think he/she will be punished later by God?
Do you think that if a politician does wrong (evil), and gets away with it here on earth, because he/she is the boss, the leader of the country and can do whatever he/she wants, do think he/she will be punished later by God?
Yes. Which is why my Realpolitik ends up quite similar to morality itself, even if Realpolitik doesn't take into account ethics.
Yes but my assertion doesn't disagree with you. It may indeed be that no offence is sufficiently grave to deserve torture as a punishment.
Somehow like 4 pages have gone by since I last checked, but I want to get back to this. Torture is never justified as a punishment, just as death isn't (hence, capital punishment). This doesn't mean, however, that it isn't necessary to kill someone out of self-defense, or similarly, use torture in the same way. I'm not nailed down on the torture position, though. It's more iffy to me than the death/self-defense issue.
Torture is never justified as a punishment, just as death isn't (hence, capital punishment). This doesn't mean, however, that it isn't necessary to kill someone out of self-defense, or similarly, use torture in the same way. I'm not nailed down on the torture position, though. It's more iffy to me than the death/self-defense issue.
I don't have much of an opinion on this. I'm not decided on the questions but probably torture should never be a punishment even for the most atrocious crimes, but it should be used if absolutely necessary like against terrorists. Death on the other hand should be a punishment for the gravest offences only.
I don't have much of an opinion on this. I'm not decided on the questions but probably torture should never be a punishment even for the most atrocious crimes, but it should be used if absolutely necessary like against terrorists. Death on the other hand should be a punishment for the gravest offences.
Well torture is just making someone suffer, physically and violently. In addition, torture has negative psychological effects even on the one who does the torturing - it dehumanises them, because they have to repress their feelings of pity, compassion and mercy. Torture may be deserved - but us human beings aren't the ones to decide that - "Vengence is mine, saith the LORD"
Death on the other hand can be swift, and involves no prolonged suffering. It's just sending the criminal to the other world to be judged by God. For the worst crimes - genocide, serial killings, terrorism - I'm in favour of death as the punishment.
...the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.”
Well torture is just making someone suffer, physically and violently. In addition, torture has negative psychological effects even on the one who does the torturing - it dehumanises them, because they have to repress their feelings of pity, compassion and mercy. Torture may be deserved - but us human beings aren't the ones to decide that - "Vengence is mine, saith the LORD"
The same could be said for our slaughtering animals, even though in the vast majority of cases and situations we need not do so in order to survive or live healthy lives. Most people don't give a rat's ass about whether it is compassionate or merciful to raise animals for slaughter, yet we do so anyway. What makes Man so special that we are allowed to treat cattle like chaff but not the terrorist, for fear that torturing them might bring about the very same vices that we carry out in and on other animals?
What do you mean perhaps not? Isn't the mere fact of living in a more developed country like US equivalent to being richer than the African kid? I mean you have access to good healthcare, services of all kinds, and so forth. The African kid doesn't even have access to that. He can't even see an iPhone in many cases, much less think about buying it.
The same could be said for our slaughtering animals, even though in the vast majority of cases and situations we need not do so in order to survive or live healthy lives. Most people don't give a rat's ass about whether it is compassionate or merciful to raise animals for slaughter, yet we do so anyway. What makes Man so special that we are allowed to treat cattle like chaff but not the terrorist, for fear that torturing them might bring about the very same vices that we carry out in and on other animals?
Well for one, we kill the animals with a purpose, to eat them. And we don't actually aim at torturing them at all, although we can make them to live in very unnatural conditions in order to maximise our economic efficiency. What would be the purpose of torturing the terrorist?
Furthermore this compassion for animals is a very novel phenomenon, occuring simply because capitalism doesn't just kill animals for food, but rather tortures them - as you say, forcing them to live in unnatural conditions - in order to produce sufficient meat. It's capitalism that gives birth to this compassion, and therefore the compassion is artificial - merely a way for capitalism to create a market for vegetarians as well - although being vegeterian in and of itself does little to help the animals or stop what's happening.
What do you mean perhaps not? Isn't the mere fact of living in a more developed country like US equivalent to being richer than the African kid? I mean you have access to good healthcare, services of all kinds, and so forth. The African kid doesn't even have access to that. He can't even see an iPhone in many cases, much less think about buying it.
Progress is an illusion, friend.
Also, you'd be surprised how many Africans have phones.
Well for one, we kill the animals with a purpose, to eat them. And we don't actually aim at torturing them at all, although we can make them to live in very unnatural conditions in order to maximise our economic efficiency. What would be the purpose of torturing the terrorist?
Let's stretch this. Say I kill a human being with the purpose of eating him/her, but I do not torture them. What's the difference?
Furthermore this compassion for animals is a very novel phenomenon, occuring simply because capitalism doesn't just kill animals for food, but rather tortures them - as you say, forcing them to live in unnatural conditions - in order to produce sufficient meat. It's capitalism that gives birth to this compassion, and therefore the compassion is artificial - merely a way for capitalism to create a market for vegetarians as well - although being vegeterian in and of itself does little to help the animals or stop what's happening.
Let's stretch this. Say I kill a human being with the purpose of eating him/her, but I do not torture them. What's the difference?
A human being is of your own kind. Killing one of your own kind for food - unless some extreme situation occurs - is immoral, for the simple reason that he's one of you. Furthermore, there are other differences. A human being is a rational creature. Killing a rational creature is more immoral than killing a non-rational creature, just like killing an animal is more immoral than killing an ant, or a fly, or a spider or a vegetable. So those are the differences. Now you may say these differences are not significant, but you can't say that there aren't any differences.
It actually does make sense. If pigs grew at the countryside, and they had sufficient space to live their lives, and were adequately taken care of, and then killed for their meat, would you not eat that pork? I would. My problem is when those pigs are grown in a crowded space, where they never see daylight, where they are beaten, where they are taken forcefully away from their natural habitat, and deprived of a natural life. So vegeterianism is a reaction against such practices - hence it only becomes possible when such practices become possible. What motivates such practices? Capitalism - the desire for maximising production.
The trolley problem is artificial. I don't solve artificial scenarios. If I actually encountered that problem in real life, I'd probably not do anything, as there's nothing I can do. Someone's dying either way, why should my decision play a causal role in who gets to die? That's for God to decide.
How could you rationalize killing someone if it wasn't necessary? What's the basis for what is "adequate"?
Proportional punishment - their crimes are so grave that they effectively take themselves out of human jurisdiction, and therefore have to be sent to the divine jurisdiction.
The trolley problem is artificial. I don't solve artificial scenarios. If I actually encountered that problem in real life, I'd probably not do anything, as there's nothing I can do. Someone's dying either way, why should my decision play a causal role in who gets to die? That's for God to decide.
And actually, it really depends upon who the people are. If the lone person is my wife or my child and the others are strangers that I don't know at all, then I'll save my wife/child any day over - forget 5 people - over even 50! Loyalty is a virtue.
A human being is of your own kind. Killing one of your own kind for food - unless some extreme situation occurs - is immoral, for the simple reason that he's one of you.
A human being is a rational creature. Killing a rational creature is more immoral than killing a non-rational creature, just like killing an animal is more immoral than killing an ant, or a fly, or a spider or a vegetable.
If pigs grew at the countryside, and they had sufficient space to live their lives, and were adequately taken care of, and then killed for their meat, would you not eat that pork?
I would not eat their meat, no. Just as I wouldn't raise my pet dachshund, let them live their life, take care of them, and then kill them to eat them.
My problem is when those pigs are grown in a crowded space, where they never see daylight, where they are beaten, where they are taken forcefully away from their natural habitat, and deprived of a natural life.
We agree here, obviously. Most people do, on some level, I'd say.
So vegeterianism is a reaction against such practices - hence it only becomes possible when such practices become possible. What motivates such practices? Capitalism - the desire for maximising production.
Vegetarianism and veganism are not exclusive reactions to capitalist commodification.
The trolley problem is artificial. I don't solve artificial scenarios. If I actually encountered that problem in real life, I'd probably not do anything, as there's nothing I can do. Someone's dying either way, why should my decision play a causal role in who gets to die? That's for God to decide.
No, not God, you. You are deciding what to do. You either do nothing, pick the 5 people, or the 1 person. My position is that it doesn't matter what is chosen so long as the chooser's intention is to do the good. This goes back to why I questioned the role duration and number have with ethics, because in my understanding it "doesn't matter" whether someone picks the one person over the other 5 if their heart is true in making the best decision.
Proportional punishment - their crimes are so grave that they effectively take themselves out of human jurisdiction, and therefore have to be sent to the divine jurisdiction.
Poppycock. You can't appeal to divinity when you're still dealing with a human being's life.
And actually, it really depends upon who the people are. If the lone person is my wife or my child and the others are strangers that I don't know at all, then I'll save my wife/child any day over - forget 5 people - over even 50! Loyalty is a virtue.
That sort of bias is precisely why the problem is funny to think about, because making a decision based on who it is is wrong.
Reply to Moliere He's interesting because of the breadth of his knowledge; I'm less impressed by it's depth. Claiming the Gandhi was more violent that Hitler, because Gandhi sort to overthrow the status quo while Hitler sort to preserve it, is more rhetoric than analysis.
It's a very significant point - you asked for differences, so I offered you actual differences. Now you can say they are irrelevant - but they are still differences, which, at least logically, could be relevant.
I actually am not. The train is running over the 5 people if I don't do anything. So clearly I'm not deciding. Without my intervention the outcome is clear
Yes. Which is why my Realpolitik ends up quite similar to morality itself, even if Realpolitik doesn't take into account ethics.
So what about the politician who doesn't believe in God? Suppose the politician practises realpolitik, focusing on clear principles like gain/loss, advantage/disadvantage, reward/punishment, because the moral right/wrong, is too cloudy and vague, it would make politics far too difficult if one had to consider right and wrong. So right and wrong is excluded from political decision making, for this politician, because it would be tedious, and progress would be slow and indecisive.
Don't you think that this politician would inevitably act immorally? In a situation where an immoral act would result in gain, and the likelihood of punishment for the act was extremely low, wouldn't that person choose the immoral act? The person would not expect to be punished by any human being, nor by God, and would surely choose the immoral act because it would be highly probable to result in much gain with very low probability of loss..
Suppose the politician practises realpolitik, focusing on clear principles like gain/loss, advantage/disadvantage, reward/punishment, because the moral right/wrong, is too cloudy and vague, it would make politics far too difficult if one had to consider right and wrong. So right and wrong is excluded from political decision making, for this politician, because it would be tedious, and progress would be slow and indecisive.
This politician would still have his own system of ethics right? So he would follow his own system of ethics in deciding how realpolitik will be employed.
In a situation where an immoral act would result in gain, and the likelihood of punishment for the act was extremely low, wouldn't that person choose the immoral act?
That's assuming he's willing to sacrifice his ethics in order to have that gain. Realpolitik makes no such assumption - it leaves such questions to be answered by the person. Realpolitik will merely inform him of what are the possible roads to victory. Which road or strategy he will adopt will depend on him - and his ethics will be included amongst those factors which will determine his choice. Indeed Realpolitik enables you to judge your own enemies by their own ethics - if you know someone will not do X, you can use that to your advantage
The person would not expect to be punished by any human being, nor by God, and would surely choose the immoral act because it would be highly probable to result in much gain with very low probability of loss..
Again it depends on his ethics. But even if it didn't, situations are never so clear. When I have to make an immoral decision it's never too clear if they will result in loss, and calculating that loss is extremely difficult. Immorality always opens you up to potentially very large losses, so one would naturally be wary of it.
Because there seems to be a hirearchy of being. I don't know. Do you feel as bad if you kill an ant, as you feel if you kill a bird?
I think that depends. I hate insects and their general creepiness, but I also hate killing them if I don't have to. And I ran over some bird turkey ostrich thing last Autumn with my car and that ruined my whole day. That goddamn fucking bird, for fuck's sake!
It's a very significant point - you asked for differences, so I offered you actual differences. Now you can say they are irrelevant - but they are still differences, which, at least logically, could be relevant.
Brah, you have to argue something, otherwise why bring up differences that I don't think matter?
I actually am not. The train is running over the 5 people if I don't do anything. So clearly I'm not deciding. Without my intervention the outcome is clear
I believe we've talked about this topic before. Not choosing is still a choice to me, but you'd disagree with that I think.
A human being is of your own kind. Killing one of your own kind for food - unless some extreme situation occurs - is immoral, for the simple reason that he's one of you.
I got to this because it's just something that is repugnant. Metaphysically, that other human being is the same as me, and if I don't desire to be eaten, he certainly doesn't (or if he does, then there's something wrong with his mind psychologically). So eating him is immoral because it's like eating myself.
I think that depends. I hate insects and their general creepiness, but I also hate killing them if I don't have to. And I ran over some bird turkey ostrich thing last Autumn with my car and that ruined my whole day. That goddamn fucking bird, for fuck's sake!
Well I never killed any animal, but I once beat my dog with a stick (just as an experiment when I was a young child lol) and I remember feeling very bad and slimy for having done that afterwards (I was about 8ish or something like that). As for insects, I generally don't kill them myself unless they are dangerous ones, like mosquitoes. But even when I do kill a mosquito though, I don't feel pangs of conscience as I would feel if I were to hit a dog with my car for example. Like there's a clear difference between killing a mosquito and even harming an animal like a dog (much less killing it). About mosquitos though, I don't like killing them, so if there's someone else in my place, like a friend, I'll task them with the dirty job lol O:)
If one is opposed to abortion (as I am), then to be morally and logically consistent, one also ought to be a vegetarian (as I am) or a vegan.
I don't think it follows. As I said, human life is more valuable than animal life, just like animal life is more valuable than plant life or insect life.
Reply to Agustino Sentient life is more valuable than non-sentient life, but among sentient life there is not much to distinguish human beings from other animals, save the faculty of reason. This is a crucially important faculty, to be sure, but it is not so important that it magically confers humans with extra moral worth.
Sentient life is more valuable than non-sentient life, but among sentient life there is not much to distinguish human beings from other animals, save the faculty of reason. This is a crucially important faculty, to be sure, but it is not so important that it magically confers humans with extra moral worth.
I agree with you regarding the differentiation existing due to reason, but I think this is a significant difference - it's a difference of kind, not only of gradation. So even if you disagree with me, you can see how your statement:
If one is opposed to abortion (as I am), then to be morally and logically consistent, one also ought to be a vegetarian (as I am) or a vegan.
Doesn't follow. It may be possible that someone is opposed to abortion (like me) and not opposed to eating meat (like me) because of the difference that exists between other animals and man.
I agree with you regarding the differentiation existing due to reason, but I think this is a significant difference - it's a difference of kind, not only of gradation.
It still doesn't matter. The ability to feel pain and suffer is the condition for determining moral worth. The ability to reason has nothing to do with determining moral worth. One can be an excellent reasoner but morally wicked, just as one can be a poor reasoner but morally virtuous.
The ability to feel pain and suffer is the condition for determining moral worth. The ability to reason has nothing to do with determining moral worth.
One can be an excellent reasoner but morally wicked, just as one can be a poor reasoner but morally virtuous.
I would dispute all of these three claims. One does not have moral worth by virtue of being able to suffer. For example, the Buddha doesn't suffer anymore - God doesn't suffer, etc. and yet they have infinite moral value. So moral value cannot cling on the possibility of suffering because that would be akin to saying that good clings on the possibility of evil.
I got to this because it's just something that is repugnant. Metaphysically, that other human being is the same as me, and if I don't desire to be eaten, he certainly doesn't (or if he does, then there's something wrong with his mind psychologically). So eating him is immoral because it's like eating myself.
Well I never killed any animal, but I once beat my dog with a stick (just as an experiment when I was a young child lol) and I remember feeling very bad and slimy for having done that afterwards (I was about 8ish or something like that). As for insects, I generally don't kill them myself unless they are dangerous ones, like mosquitoes. But even when I do kill a mosquito though, I don't feel pangs of conscience as I would feel if I were to hit a dog with my car for example. Like there's a clear difference between killing a mosquito and even harming an animal like a dog (much less killing it).
Just because we tend toward thinking this way doesn't mean we ought to.
Just because we tend toward thinking this way doesn't mean we ought to.
Be more clear, thinking which way? That killing a mosquito is better (but still immoral) compared to killing an animal? I think such thinking is unavoidable, and if you're honest to yourself, you'll see that this is simply the case.
Not sure if serious, but you're wrong either way O:)
>:O Yes I'm not prepared to discuss vegetarianism. I just merely try to illustrate that it's possible to be consistent while not being a vegetarian/vegan.
Reply to Agustino We do not confer moral worth to rocks, plants, tables, and the like, for the reason that they cannot feel pain. We do confer moral worth to human beings and other sentient animals for this reason, however.
Be more clear, thinking which way? That killing a mosquito is better (but still immoral) compared to killing an animal? I think such thinking is unavoidable, and if you're honest to yourself, you'll see that this is simply the case.
At base, killing either would be doing the same immoral action. But it is true that you and I are more required as we live our lives to kill mosquitoes over dogs or cats or cows.
We do not confer moral worth to rocks, plants, tables, and the like, for the reason that they cannot feel pain.
It seems to me that the more fundamental condition for having moral worth is that something is a living being. Whether or not such a being feels pain or even is capable of feeling pain is much less important. Plants are still alive. Walking over and crushing a bunch of roses for fun is immoral, even if they feel no pain. Why? Because they are living beings, and my act is the equivalent of disrespecting and not valuing living beings.
Well it's in accordance with Buddha's own teaching. Nirvana is the end of dukkha. As for Jesus, remember that Jesus was both human and God at one and the same time. God qua God cannot suffer, indeed that would mean his nature is imperfect.
At base, killing either would be doing the same immoral action. But it is true that you and I are more required as we live our lives to kill mosquitoes over dogs or cats or cows.
No but consider how we feel about killing mosquitos compared to killing animals. We feel very very differently. I think there's a reason for this. You apparently don't. You think fundamentally the two are the same. I disagree. There's higher moral worth in the one compared with the other, hence why we feel worse if we were to kill an animal, than if we were to kill a mosquito.
Walking over and crushing a bunch of roses for fun is immoral
:-O This is absurd. Doing this might negate their aesthetic value, but you haven't done anything morally wrong. My position appeals to how we use moral language, yours strains credulity here.
:-O This is absurd. Doing this might negate their aesthetic value, but you haven't done anything morally wrong. My position appeals to how we use moral language, yours strains credulity here.
Really... I find someone who cuts trees for fun, who steps over roses, who rips out a plant's leaves one by one, all these for fun to be highly immoral. If you don't find such actions immoral fine, but I for one certainly do. I think someone who does so, doesn't only do something that I don't like - something that I don't find aesthetically pleasing - but rather they're doing something that is morally wrong.
Reply to Agustino They would be imprudent, certainly, but to call such actions immoral really beggars belief. You have stated that the criterion for moral worth is to be a living thing. If so, then we are all moral monsters considering the amount of life killed by our actions, even unconsciously, e.g. the 100s of trillions of microbes that die by our very existence every second.
If so, then we are all moral monsters, considering the amount of life killed by our actions, even unconsciously, e.g. the 100s of trillions of microbes that die all the time by our very existence every second.
Only if you consider that killing a microbe (or even 1 trillion microbes) is equivalent to killing a human being. To my mind, they're not equivalent at all - there's a hirearchy of being, and some beings have higher moral worth than others. Rational beings have the highest moral worth. And to steal Heister's phrase, some killing/immorality is necessary in order to live - killing those microbes isn't something you can avoid doing.
And to steal Heister's phrase, some killing/immorality is necessary in order to live - killing those microbes isn't something you can avoid doing.
It's funny how affirmative ethics rests upon violations of its very principles. It's a second-order ethics that is based upon a fundamental and unanalyzed assumption that life is, as a whole, at least not-bad.
Well, I disagree. I don't see that reason somehow makes humans possess more moral worth.
Is killing a human being worse than killing an ant? Is running a human being over with your car worse than running a cat over? If you answer yes to any of these, you do actually believe in a hirearchy of being, as that is what is required to explain and justify why you have such feelings. If you don't have such feelings, then well, you don't. But I'd find that quite peculiar.
You apparently don't. You think fundamentally the two are the same. I disagree. There's higher moral worth in the one compared with the other, hence why we feel worse if we were to kill an animal, than if we were to kill a mosquito.
At base, they're the same, yes. However, my point has been that we're more often necessarily required to swat a mosquito than kill/eat another animal. Both the mosquito and the animal have the same moral worth until they come into contact with mine, or yours, or Thorongil's.
I think both of you would agree with me that the world is fallen, in the Christian sense, yet if there is no ethic that concerns itself with the rocks and the stars as much as it does with the hippo and the human, then how fallen is our world, really? I find myself to be struggling with existence as much as the tree appears to as it wonders why it must bloom and shed year after year, or the galaxy that implodes only to explode into another. If the failure of the world rests only in life and not in all things, then I'm rather perplexed.
This politician would still have his own system of ethics right? So he would follow his own system of ethics in deciding how realpolitik will be employed.
But isn't the point of realpolitik to allow one to make political decisions without being hindered by any such system of ethics? So if he was adhering to the principles of realpolitik he would try as much as possible to avoid whatever systems of ethics that he was already versed in, in order to more efficiently make his political decisions. Doing wrong morally would not necessarily be considered as the wrong thing to do, it would be considered as a risk for punishment, just like making the right move would be determined with respect to gain rather than what is good morally.
Again it depends on his ethics. But even if it didn't, situations are never so clear. When I have to make an immoral decision it's never too clear if they will result in loss, and calculating that loss is extremely difficult. Immorality always opens you up to potentially very large losses, so one would naturally be wary of it.
If one does not believe in God, then the only losses directly related to the immorality of the act would be in the form of punishment inflicted by other human beings. But if the politician has already obtained a sufficient degree of power, such a potential for loss has already been mitigated by the fact that the other human beings lack the power to punish.
There is a poignant incoherence in supposing both that it is only rationality that makes humans morally worthy, while maintaining that a foetus is also worthy.
It's a topic I have been considering for a few months - working my way carefully through Martha Nussbaum's Frontiers of Justice. She juxtaposes this view of rationality as the demarcation of moral inclusion with a more Aristotelian view of potential. Most interesting.
The Great WhateverJanuary 29, 2017 at 05:42#509970 likes
Reply to Thorongil I don't think one needs a reason to prefer humans. We're humans, we care about our own kind.
The Great WhateverJanuary 29, 2017 at 05:49#510010 likes
Reply to Banno I dunno, the objection seems to presuppose some sort of actualism, which while possible isn't obvious.
That is, most people think it's wrong to kill babies even though they possess none of the qualities based on which we attribute dignity to mature humans. Extending this to the fetus isn't a logical leap, it's just a difference in how far you're willing to stretch the continuum.
Reply to The Great Whatever
I don't mind good arguments for making abortion illegal.
There is a legal precedent for the personhood of a fetus, for example consider the cases of double homicide charges for a person who has murdered a woman who is pregnant.
The issue of abortion is about choice though.
Is it a woman's right to choose whom she will procreate with?
The answer is yes and making abortion illegal when not change this.
Before abortion was legal women self induced miscarriage or sought out illegal abortion methods.
Of course women can do these things without informing anyone that they are pregnant in the first place, so there is no practical way to enforce fetal personhood by holding the women accountable.
Especially with self induced miscarriage there is always plausible denial.
The only thing accomplished by illegal abortion/fetal personhood is to prevent women from health services regarding what will remain their decision.
Furthermore those claiming to be pro-life most often are not.
They don't adopt children and care nothing for the life of the child in question.
In fact these people will readily admit claiming "pregnancy should be punishment for having sex" without a shred of concern that there could be two victims punished to suffer for several years.
I don't consider that a reasonable punishment for being irresponsible.
The Great WhateverJanuary 29, 2017 at 06:03#510030 likes
Reply to m-theory I think the issue is just one of personhood, not of legality. It may be that a fetus is a person in some sense, but that murder of a person in some cases is also acceptable, e.g. if that person is occupying your body, so that right to one's own body takes precedence over their right to life.
Reply to The Great Whatever
If it is an issue of personhood only then, as I said, there is already a legal precedent.
I said it was a matter of choice because when a fetus dies because the woman is murdered the woman had no choice in that matter and that is what make the death of the fetus wrong.
Whereas in the case that the woman chooses abortion it is not wrong, because she has that right by matter of natural fact.
But since we agree that personhood rather than rationality is the deciding factor, it's probably not worth following this course.
The Great WhateverJanuary 29, 2017 at 06:23#510090 likes
Reply to Banno What I mean is just that someone could make the cut based off of rationality, but hold that the sort of creature was important, not the sort-of-creature-at-a-time. (This could be seen modally, i.e. a baby is potentially rational, could or will be).
For instance, if you were really serious about holding that rationality would only matter if it were being manifested by the individual right then, on those grounds it should be okay to kill sleeping people, who not only are not rational, but don't feel anything either.
I think the issue is just one of personhood, not of legality. It may be that a fetus is a person in some sense, but that murder of a person in some cases is also acceptable, e.g. if that person is occupying your body, so that right to one's own body takes precedence over their right to life.
Attributing personhood is arbitrary since it is and will remain a vague concept. You'll have endless discussions pace every abortion thread ever.
The Great WhateverJanuary 29, 2017 at 06:31#510120 likes
Reply to Benkei Vague concepts are not arbitrary; they are vague. And whatever personhood is, it is clearly not arbitrary, and I don't think anyone actually believes that anyway.
Vague concepts are not arbitrary; they are vague. And whatever personhood is, it is clearly not arbitrary, and I don't think anyone actually believes that anyway.
I didn't say personhood is arbitrary, I said attributing it will be arbitrary and this is inherent due to the fact the term is vague.
Just as we develop from infancy to maturity, deciding the point where we are mature is arbitrary. At 38 I'm still maturing.
I don't know much about the details, but isn't it hypocritical of May to condemn Trump's stance on refugees whilst pushing a hard Brexit that allows her to block refugees?
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 29, 2017 at 14:16#510420 likes
Whaaaaat? You haven't read it? :O Hup to, Mater Tiff!
I will! I will read it and then pass it to my Mother In Law so she can read it and then stash it away in the 'day after' box. ;) I am going to bring the Bible and some Vodka!
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 29, 2017 at 14:19#510430 likes
I fell asleep to the protests at the airports, I wake up to this:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/trump-refugee-ban-nauru-resettlement-deal-with-australia-could-be-saved/news-story/9cdbe11ff03582bb782a42953c38183d
So maybe we should give both of these new administrations time to breathe and get all the information out above the noise being raised by both sides.
There is a poignant incoherence in supposing both that it is only rationality that makes humans morally worthy, while maintaining that a foetus is also worthy.
It seems to me that the more fundamental condition for having moral worth is that something is a living being.
Can someone explain to this guy for me please, what philosophical error he's engaging in? :-} Perhaps he should also tell us where I have stated that it is ONLY rationality that confers moral value to human beings :-d
See I would disagree with you here. My moral instinct tells me that this is wrong. Ask yourself if running over a cat really is just as bad as running over a small child. You'd feel terrible in both cases, but which is worse? You can even argue per your own frame of reference, that since humans are capable of greater suffering then animals, it follows that killing a human being leads to greater suffering than killing an animal and is therefore more immoral.
At base, they're the same, yes. However, my point has been that we're more often necessarily required to swat a mosquito than kill/eat another animal.
Why are we required to swat the mosquito? We could let it live and bite us, or we could put a bit more effort to get it out of our homes without killing it. Why is killing it better than these alternatives?
I think both of you would agree with me that the world is fallen, in the Christian sense, yet if there is no ethic that concerns itself with the rocks and the stars as much as it does with the hippo and the human, then how fallen is our world, really? I find myself to be struggling with existence as much as the tree appears to as it wonders why it must bloom and shed year after year, or the galaxy that implodes only to explode into another. If the failure of the world rests only in life and not in all things, then I'm rather perplexed.
Is it a woman's right to choose whom she will procreate with?
There is no question of rights here. All this talk about rights drives me crazy. The question is what's morally correct to do for a woman in terms of procreation. And that includes her not being forced to procreate with someone who she doesn't want to procreate with, quite obviously. But it also includes not killing a defenceless human being just so she can have sex. That's sick and disgusting.
Of course women can do these things without informing anyone that they are pregnant in the first place, so there is no practical way to enforce fetal personhood by holding the women accountable.
The only thing accomplished by illegal abortion/fetal personhood is to prevent women from health services regarding what will remain their decision.
It's the state (and by extension the community) refusing to take part in an immoral act. We speak out against it by not allowing abortions in our society. If women still want to do them, they're free to do it, but they're on their own. They don't belong in our communities if they don't want to abide by those rules.
In fact these people will readily admit claiming "pregnancy should be punishment for having sex" without a shred of concern that there could be two victims punished to suffer for several years.
Tough luck, life is difficult, next time be more careful. I am for legal abortion in cases of rape, incest, and in married relationships, as well as when the woman's life is threatened by the baby.
if that person is occupying your body, so that right to one's own body takes precedence over their right to life.
:-} LOL! Surely that only holds true if you're risking your life in carrying them in your body and giving birth to them. Otherwise it's your fault for getting them in your body to begin with. What, you raise the dust and then complain you cannot see? >:O
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 29, 2017 at 16:17#510590 likes
I think we're on the second go round at the moment - no names, no sick laughter.
un, it is when I read your comment that I realized that in times of moral testing, great music is born. I have included a few of the lyrics as both songs are long but these stood out to me at the moment..
"You may be right, I may be crazy. But it just may be a lunatic you're looking for
Turn out the light. Don't try to save me. You may be wrong for all I know. But you may be right"
-Billy Joel
"A long, long time ago, I can still remember how that music used to make me smile
And I knew if I had my chance, that I could make those people dance
And maybe they'd be happy for a while.
But February made me shiver, with every paper I'd deliver
Bad news on the doorstep, I couldn't take one more step...
Oh, and there we were all in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time left to start again
So come on, Jack be nimble, Jack be quick
Jack Flash sat on a candlestick
'Cause fire is the devil's only friend..."
-Don McLean
If one does not believe in God, then the only losses directly related to the immorality of the act would be in the form of punishment inflicted by other human beings. But if the politician has already obtained a sufficient degree of power, such a potential for loss has already been mitigated by the fact that the other human beings lack the power to punish.
I agree, such a person would probably act in an immoral way if he has no other system of ethics - other than God - to prevent him from taking such actions. It's just the way things are.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 29, 2017 at 16:21#510610 likes
Otherwise it's your fault for getting them in your body to begin with.
Fault? Interesting word choice Agustino.
Responsibility would be my choice of words and damn straight that it is my body and if I am pregnant and do not WANT/ am not ABLE to care for this fetus for LIFE? Then it is MY choice to abort within the legal timeframes.
AND until YOU are able to choose the same for YOUR life, inside of YOUR body, your opinion has limited impact.
I wouldn't know precisely. In one case a sentient being was killed and in the other a sentient being that can reason that 2+2=4 and the like was killed. I see no moral difference between the two.
You can even argue per your own frame of reference, that since humans are capable of greater suffering then animals, it follows that killing a human being leads to greater suffering than killing an animal and is therefore more immoral.
But the immorality was never in doubt. If it is immoral to indiscriminately torture or kill sentient animals then it is immoral with respect to humans, regardless of whether they suffer more or less. My dividing line is between sentience and non-sentience.
The only cases in which killing an animal or a human fetus is warranted are those of self-defense and survival. If your own life isn't being threatened and you don't have to kill an animal for food, then I see no reason to. The only excuses offered for doing so are that "we're better than them," which assumes some sort of teleology, and that eating animals tastes good, which assumes hedonism. As for the first, I think many animal species are kinder and gentler than human beings, so we lose on the "being better" claim by simple empirical observation. As for the second, virtually any kind of immoral behavior can be justified on hedonistic grounds, so it can't be the criterion for judging moral worth.
Then what is it? If you don't want them to be in there, how did they get in there? Did they magically pop in there? If that's the case, I might agree to let you have abortions >:O
Responsibility would be my choice of words and damn straight that it is my body and if I am pregnant and do not WANT/ am not ABLE to care for this fetus for LIFE?
Then you can place the baby once born in an orphanage, obviously. But you can't deprive the baby of life once you have already given him life...
AND until YOU are able to choose the same for YOUR life, inside of YOUR body, your opinion has limited impact.
This is a non sequitur - if I was a woman I wouldn't have sex in such a way so as to get an unwanted pregnancy. Probably I wouldn't have sex at all until marriage actually to tell you the honest truth.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 29, 2017 at 16:25#510640 likes
If that's the case, I might agree to let you have abortions
You don't nor will you ever have to "agree" or "let" me do anything to my body, that choice is mine and mine alone. Quoting Agustino
They you can place the baby once born in an orphanage, obviously. But you can't deprive the baby of life once you have already given him life...
I haven't given a fetus "life" in the first 20 weeks after the day of insemination. Quoting Agustino
This is a non sequitur - if I was a woman I wouldn't have sex in such a way so as to get an unwanted pregnancy. Probably I wouldn't have sex at all until marriage actually to tell you the honest truth.
But Agustino, I am married and that does not change the right for me to choose to end a pregnancy within the first 20 weeks. Now it would be a respectful thing to make sure my husband agreed with my choice but I would not legally need his consent to have an abortion.
Then it is MY choice to abort within the legal timeframes.
The question is whether it's a moral one.
The Great WhateverJanuary 29, 2017 at 16:30#510680 likes
Reply to Thorongil If there's a moral sentiment to preserve things like you and to be around things like you, I would be skeptical of the claim that we must step back from this and determine some sort of universal, rationalistic criterion of worth before taking the more intimate moral sentiments seriously.
Reply to Thorongil But wait a second, you yourself have said that it's the capacity for pain and suffering that makes killing it immoral. So if man has a greater capacity for pain and suffering than an animal, doesn't it follow on your own view that killing a man is worse than killing an animal?
The only cases in which killing an animal or a human fetus is warranted are those of self-defense and survival. If your own life isn't being threatened and you don't have to kill an animal for food, then I see no reason to. The only excuses offered for doing so are that "we're better than them," which assumes some sort of teleology, or that eating animals tastes good, which assumes hedonism. As for the first, I think many animal species are kinder and gentler than human beings, so we lose on the "being better" claim by simple empirical observation. As for the second, virtually any kind of immoral behavior can be justified on hedonistic grounds, so it can't be the criterion for judging moral worth.
What if I eat an animal that someone else has killed? And there are other "excuses" such that it's traditional to eat meat. And in many societies meat was one of the easiest sources of protein to procure, and so, for example, soldiers ate a ton of meat to be able to undertake the physical effort that they had to.
We instinctually do, yes, but we clearly ought not act on all our instincts, so they are a poor criterion for judging moral worth.
Sure, but this doesn't mean our instincts are irrelevant. Presumably whatever ethics one comes up with, would reconcile our instincts to reason.
The Great WhateverJanuary 29, 2017 at 16:32#510710 likes
Reply to Benkei Vagueness doesn't entail arbitrariness. It might, on a certain view of vagueness, entail an arbitrariness around certain borderline cases. But even then, people might be mistaken about where those borderline cases are to begin with in a way that's not arbitrary.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 29, 2017 at 16:32#510720 likes
Comments (61561)
p2. The dog has exploded.
c1. My work is done.
...
p3. If my premises are true, my conclusion is true. (My argument is valid.)
p4. My premises are true. (It is true that my argument is valid, and it is true that it is true.)
c2. My conclusion is true. (Ain't that the truth!)
Don't think so.
If you're in North America, you're an asshole.
There's nothing about being in North America that causes asshole-hood, so we're just looking at incidence, not consequence. There's an association, but the cause of both could be a third entity.
The Malankovitch Cycle resulted in an attraction of the world's assholes to North America.
1. All men are animals
2. If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is an animal.
So you're trying to say that if all men are animals, then the conditional (2) is always true. There's a bit of sophistry in this to be honest. A conditional is false only if the consequent is false given the antecedent. If someone grants (1), then whether Socrates is a man or not has no bearing on the truth of (2). The whole question is whether or not Socrates is an animal follows from Socrates is a man, and given (1) it does, as we already know from the traditional 3 premise argument (we couldn't draw its conclusion otherwise). But the reason why I say it's a sophistry, is that it doesn't tell us anything about how things actually are. It doesn't actually tell us if Socrates is a man or an animal. Socrates could be a man and an animal, or he could be an animal, or he could be neither - what couldn't be the case is that Socrates is a man and yet isn't an animal. And the fact is that (2) is a specific example of the general clause covered by (1). You could replace Socrates with a variable, and then you'd get an identical statement with (1). (2) is just a specific instance of (1) in other words.
Yes, that is correct; a conditional does not say how things are, but only that if they are thus then they are so. After all, it is equally the case that if Zeus is a man then Zeus is an animal (given 1.).
But of course we know Zeus is not a man. But if you look back a few posts, it is still the case that conditional premises can function in logical arguments.
It might be that 2. is true even though 1. is false. For instance it might be the case that:
3. all men except Buddha and Jesus are animals.
In which case 2. follows from 3 and 1. is false.
Now if 1. can be false and 2. true, I think you have to admit that they do not say the same thing, or that one is contained in or an instance of the other.
It is the nature of argument that a conclusion must always say the same or less than the sum of its premises, and it is au contraire sophistry and necessarily illogical to demand that more should be said.
Does it? Wouldn't 2. have to say "If Socrates is a man, and Socrates isn't Buddha or Jesus, then Socrates is an animal?" If so, then my criticism is still valid.
Personally unenlightened, I would be very surprised if there can be non-tautologous and non-circular one premise arguments. They must all be reducible, in principle, to:
A
Therefore A
Otherwise I fail to see how they could follow;
A
Therefore B
Only follows if B is in some way related to A, and the only way it can be related to A must be defined through A itself, and thus B must be contained within A (be a particular instance of it). I am a man of faith, and I have faith in common sense.
4. All men except Buddha and Jesus, who have no other monikers particularly Greek ones, are animals.
Happy now?
No, because 2. would have to say "If Socrates is a man, and Socrates isn't Buddha or Jesus, and he has no other monikers particularly greek ones, then Socrates is an animal"
It is not defined in 2. whether Socrates is a Greek, whether he isn't Buddha or Jesus, and whatever other conditions you put in 1. And neither is such a thing defined in 1. And it must be defined somewhere for the conclusion to follow. So either you put it as additional premises, or you put it within the conditional. This is necessary - I fail to see how this could be otherwise.
A conditional claim such as "If A then B" has a premiss, which is that A implies B. If A is true (this would be a separate premiss), we could conclude that B is true. You can only conclude B once you have the additional premiss that A is true but the sentence "if A then B" does not state A is true and therefore no conclusion can be made from it.
p1. If A then B
p2. A
C. therefore B
And again: earlier reply
It isn't about causation, but it [I]is[/I] about a [i]logical connection[/I] - whether that is explicated by incidence, causation, or otherwise. And it [I]is[/I] nevertheless about consequence, but not if you're just using that as a synonym for "cause". It is saying that [I]if[/I] you are in North America, [I]then[/I] you are an asshole. That is the consequence of being in North America - [i]whatever the reason[/I]. It could be to do with genetics, the environment, the culture, or a coincidence, but logically, in this limited respect, that doesn't make a difference. And there is no way around that one. If that conditional statement is true, then it is logically impossible to simultaneously be in North America and [i]not[/I] be an asshole.
The consequent is true as a result or [I]consequence[/I] of the antecedent being true - the latter of which, in your example, would mean being in North America. It is called the consequent for a reason.
Yeah, I completely agree. It was poor wording on my part. I was trying to get across that it is saying that A implies B, but I shouldn't have been referring to B as the conclusion. It is saying that the antecedent implies the consequent.
>:)
[I]Even if[/I] true, you only got there because of [i]Great[/I] Britain, and our great empire, which I do believe remains to be the largest empire there has ever been.
Yeah, Chileans and US citizens both really come off as complete assholes...
Where you plateau out.
Here is a patalogical syllogism for the all patagonegirls.
P1. For all X, if X is a man, X is mortal.
P2. For all X if X is Socrates, X is a man.
C1. For all X if X is Socrates, X is mortal.
Which begs the question as to whether Socrates is an exist, an ifist, or a Patagonian.
Happeded. >:O
That's my new favourite word. This might just be the happededess day of my life.
Also, what is the difference, if any, between a mouse and a gorilla?
Is suffering all there is? No. Obviously not.
Your earlier reply proves exactly what I have said. (1) is a general level statement, and (2) is a more specific instance of (1). (2) is included in (1), and amounts of begging the question.
What happens next? :D
4D Printing
He wants to do this now!!! I am doing back flips and he looks at me out of the corner of his eye and asks, did I not know about this?
Serious or smart ass?
Yes, but it takes three viewings in one day to see it.
I'm so confused.
:(
I'm not interested in truth but rather status (which genuine curiosity might confer in this neighborhood). I don't have any in any domain. Donald Trump would call me a loser. :(
That is all.
Yes please! Go Meryl!
Sapienitia, are you willing to host her?? Take her...she's yours! 8-)
This would be a perfect moment for a raised eyebrow smilie. :D
Look, Meryl is not happy, Whoopie swore she would move, along with a bunch of other folks if Trump was elected. Though I did not EVER want Hillary, anywhere near the Presidential office, I never said that if she was elected, I would leave the country. If these folks are so worked up about the 45th President elect, such as yourself Sapientia, then please open your arms and welcome the lot of them in.
The USA is to be United and Meryl along with Elizabeth Warren don't want to unite so let them go, be free!
In the meantime, the rest of us are going to do what we have been doing, day in and day out and that is working our asses off to obtain clients that pay, stay and refer. They are the bread and butter of our small business existence and in the last 8 years the strangle hold of regulations has been near lethal for the businesses that we help grow. There is not a single small business owner, in OUR profession of POS (Point Of Sale) computer networking business, that is not GENUINELY excited about what the next 4-8 yrs hold.
And Sapientia my fine feathered friend, excitement in the small business world is like gasoline being poured onto a log of Pitch that has been smoldering for almost a decade.
Like a Phoenix, the USA is rising from the ashes.
You know that's a myth, right? In the real world nothing rises from the ashes except the stench of burning corpses.
If the USA really is to be united, Meryl and Elizabeth are the least of your worries, the 100 million or so other Americans who consider Trump an abomination (read the polls) may be a somewhat more inconvenient assemblage to force to walk the plank of the good ship, Trumpmerica.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Deregulation will probably help small business owners like yourselves, but that doesn't make Trump's overall economic plan of more spending (infrastructure, the military, his hair) and less revenue (massive tax cuts for the rich), desirable. (Do the math).
Lol. At least un only created an image though. There's a certain angry orange hairball stalking around that's about to be given the nuclear codes.
Looks hard.
NB. Conversly with regard to the above, I' ve admittedly heard it said that on a journey distance travelled is not necessarily proportional to time taken - so that in retrospect, it can turn out that someone who didn't make it past 25 nonetheless ultimately had a more meaningful life-experience than another who made it past 90!
Are you suggesting that anyone critical - and rightly so, by the way - of Donald Trump is unwelcome in the US? How can you people keep jumping to this man's defence? Irrespective of who is wrong and who is right here - and it's clear to me which way around it is - just compare the criticism with it's reply. On the one hand, you've got a thoughtful, eloquent, passionate speech; and on the other hand, you've got a childish name-calling and outright denial.
It's weird. It's like the moral of the boy who cried wolf somehow doesn't apply when it comes to Trump. Caught red handed? Yes. Apologise? No. Just deny it and call 'em a name, and large swathes of people will lap it up and jump to your defence. Instead of taking the side of those in defence of the victim, take the side of the powerful, tax dodging, immoral, lying, narcissistic, bully.
I've sometimes thought there must be something unmanly in me, that I don't fancy scaling the Eiger, nor marching as to war, or off to, war.
What?! Who [i]wouldn't[/I] want the chance to kill people or get shot or blown to pieces or have to have a limb or two removed or captured and tortured...?
And yet I see people who looked just like me, in 1914, eagerly joining their mates to go off and help that nice Lord Kitchener. And in faraway countries lots of bold youngsters eager to repel invaders.
Meow!
GREG
un, have I told you that you have a hell of a way with words? (Y)
but
I respectfully disagree with your colorful assertion of the Phoenix and the legend of the Phoenix, not just from living in Phoenix but from my Instructor in Greek Mythology back in college (the man was an amazing instructor but that is for another time ;) ) . True the Phoenix does turn into ashes after living 500 years HOWEVER a new bird rises from the ashes.
Still I rise comes to mind, maybe you have heard it...
[i]"Just like moons and like suns,
With the certainty of tides,
Just like hopes springing high,
Still I'll rise."[/i]
I don't agree with everything Trump is proposing I assure you. I have great reservations on what his administration can and might attempt to thwart the will of the voters regarding MANY issues and industries close to my heart and health. However, when it comes to deregulation, I have expectations NOT hopes. I will hold any president accountable for what happens under their watch in the same way that I am responsible for my children, while under my watch and extends to anyone I entrust their care into. It's not a light topic nor should any of them be. Leave the States to care for those that pay for their state to do so.
Ya know?
Trump isn't a player, he's pawn and he's not even one of your pawns.
Of course that is not what I said, nor was it the spirit of my words to apply to ANYONE who disagrees with our next President, which by the way Donald Trump is.
I don't agree with everything ANY President has said, nor do I feel the need to defend his every comment or decision. I have very few hills that I would be willing to die on in regards to my Governments position but there are a couple. AND I assure you that there are PLENTY of other Americans that are going to try at every turn, to keep our President 'in check' on the hills they are willing to die on.
For instance: the great southern wall that Trump is building will have to cross over 75 miles of a Tribal Nation, which has decided that they will not let a bigger wall be built on. The Tribal Chief has made it clear that it IS a hill he is willing to die on.
Wants and desires will be challenged and Trump seems to be following the Reagan theory of getting 80% of the folks in your camp and go back for the other 20%. Seeing as Arizona is almost 70% non Caucasian, it is not in their best interest to honor the immigration ideas that Trump suggested as a nominee.
un, you know my respect for you and your thoughts, so trust me when I share the same fear that you speak of. The problem is that 'this horse' has left the barn. Meaning it was within the Obama administration that the USA was shown to be 'weak and apologetic' and for the last 8 years, our country has been destroying itself from the top down. I am not judging what those who voted for Obama expected but he met my expectation but I need not digress into how he achieved such a sub-level assessment.
Our government is meant to be 'up' for a new leader every 4 years and only two terms for the very reason you are witnessing now. We do not wish to experience another civil war but if we didn't learn anything the first time, then we are doomed to repeat it. As far as corruption? It is in every administration and I doubt that will ever change but tyranny?
On November 8th, we stood at the final toll, AFTER all the warning signs of Trump and Clinton were exposed and we as a collective of states, called a union, voted and the election was won. I am going to give Trump the best shot I can because I want to see our nation not just survive but thrive.
I do hope in your heart of hearts, that Americans thriving is something you wish to see as well, as I have never wished anything but the best for you.
What more can I do?
Unfortunately, I have no faith at all in the efficacy of my wishes for your thriving. America will decline; it does not look as if it will do so gracefully or peacefully. By all means give it your best shot, but keep the larder well stocked.
Why is it that you so often agree with that little voice inside my head, that starts trying to change my opinion, every time I head out with the best of intentions, regardless of the doubters of my success or the cheerleaders of my failures.
As for the greatness of the US... the US rose to prominence in the 1940s after most of the world had exhausted itself in global war. It was a unique set of circumstances. Though some Americans dreamed of the American Century... others dreamed of the US taking a place in a global coalition... the UN (that didn't work out, obviously.)
As for the future, the 22 Century will be very different by virtue of an energy crisis due to depletion of oil and gas. The US is in a pretty secure position. So is Russia and China. Europe, on the other hand, heavily dependent now on gas, will face much greater challenges. One possibility is retrogression.
In other words.. change is on the horizon. There may be some aspects of the future that we haven't even guessed.
Mongrel I think Heister wants something from you :-*
Isn't he celibate?
"Objectively, our modern justice system may be no better at arriving at truth and justice than the Grand Amphibian system. But that is not its true purpose. The point is to resolve disputes in a manner that is generally recognized as final, such that its decisions have the reasonable support and respect of the community. A purely rational system that dispenses with ceremony in favor of accuracy would likely not serve this purpose at all. “Bring on the handcuffs,” perhaps – and the black robes, imposing architecture, and arcane rules.
This is the post-rationalist critique: that irrational-seeming systems often serve the interests of people better than purely rational systems that attempt to dispense with ceremony."
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2015/11/05/ritual-epistemology/
Worth reading, imo.
Personally, with regard to the clearly fulfilling life-style of some people I actually know who mountaineer as a 'hobby' in my own country, Scotland, I sometimes feel - as I sit at my reasuringly comfortable office desk - a disconcerting envy! Then again, as a reminder of the unavoidable danger this activity involves, I also once heard of a talented mountaineer who died aged only 21 while he was taking part in a particularly challenging Alpine expedition. Although of course an extreem example, perhaps even such a case could involve some ambiguity when estimating the overall degree of tragedy ultimately thereby obtaining. - How to render such equations comprehensible?
I held a lady's hand the other day while she was having a crap.
I held out a lady's hand into which I took a crap.
Did you two enjoy the smell? :D
She's into that David Icke stuff, and thinks that she's one of those hybrid alien lizards from the 4th dimension -- but Icke is actually the bad guy, trying to subvert our benevolent hyper-dimensional overlords.
She's also the happiest, and most content one in the family though (other than me, as I will assert later to her), insanity is actually a lot of fun.
St. George killed the dragon and in some other myth the blood or liver was eaten.
Generations later, one might catch a glimpse of an impending chaos in a corrupt leader who was a descendant of St. George.
The hero's line is contaminated by the legendary power it inherits. Through it, the dragon is reborn.
When David Icke sees a reptile beneath a human facade, it's a metaphorical dragon (threatening chaos) let loose in a paranoid brain.
Could be Jews too.
Verily, 'tis a religion of one. You can have your magic wafer and eat it too.
Only if you wear them at night ;)
Are you sure you have that much to lose Wos?
(pardon the Mother in me (L) )
I just wanted to say that in case I start saying crazy shit again, stirred up a lot of shit last time.
What happened to the roofing gig?
It's seasonal. Normally I can easily afford to just take the winter off, but had a lot of extra expenses, so have to find something just temporarily until spring.
Just about, lol.
Ok, so you don't understand how basic logic works. Nice. That 2 is "included" in 1, does not mean that 1 = 2, which is what you're saying when you say "A, therefore A". There is no begging the question going on.
Except that 2 isn't a subset of 1 *facepalm*
Except that that is precisely what it was, which is why I gave a mathematical example, which I'll repeat:
p1. all numbers divisible by 2 are even
p2. 2 is divisible by 2
c. Therefore 2 is even
Here the number "2" is a subset of the set "all numbers divisible by 2".
Here's some high school math for you about subsets: subsets
Again, "2" is not equal to "all numbers divisible by 2" and your comments don't add up because of it.
I haven't claimed it was. I merely claimed that "all numbers divisible by 2" includes 2 - I don't understand what the hell you're going on about.
Not to mention that we were talking about SINGLE PREMISE arguments - now it seems to me you have two premises over there.
All numbers divisible by 2 are even
Therefore if 2 is divisible by 2, then 2 is even
You're saying a little bit of tautologous crap because the first statement includes the particular case of number 2 within it. Number 2 becomes a subset of it.
And lost a bet over which country has a better Ice Hockey team either Canada or Chicago AND bet on his home country? :P
So if I form the argument:
All men are mortal
Therefore, if Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal
Then this is tautologous because Socrates is a subset of men?
Your reasoning seems to attack the very concept of a syllogism.
No it's tautologous because you're saying that:
A
Therefore if X is subset of A, then X is true
It's a tautology because A already affirms the truth of X (where X is any potential subset)- the conclusion doesn't add anything to the fact that A, and all its subsets are the case. It doesn't even tell me if X is actually a subset of A in fact. I really have gained no knowledge by knowing the conclusion than I initially had by knowing the premise that A is the case.
Quoting Michael
Maybe you could actually take this down a Pyrrhonian route - but you'd have to expand it to multi-premise arguments - and then claim that syllogisms are useless because their conclusions add nothing to what the premises are already telling us. And you'll then arrive at the old Aristotelian problem of philosophy - how to have correct premises - which becomes even more important than the syllogism, which ends up being merely a way of presenting the knowledge already existing in the premises, and not of "proving" anything or obtaining new true premises.
That's putting the horse behind the carriage. The number 2 does not become a subset of it. Because it is a subset of numbers divisible by 2 (premise) it therefore is even (conclusion). Also, normal usage of the english language would suggest a conclusion follows after "therefore" but instead you introduce a second premise after that word. The additional (now conditional premise) is that 2 is a subset of the main set. Correct presentation of the argument would be, if you want to use a "single premise" argument:
All numbers divisible by 2 are even
If 2 is divisible by 2 then it is even
or
2 is divisible by 2 therefore it is even (see what I did there?)
This really is no different from saying:
A = B
If C = subset of A then B (it merely becomes a necessary condition)
From the earlier high school link, it should be clear that the set "2, 4, 8, 10 ,etc" is not the same as the subset of "2". Replacing the numbers for words as per the example from the high school text: {banana, coconut, strawberry} is not equal to {banana}. There's therefore no tautology going on.
Nice one with the insults by the way.
With Agustino, it generally goes something like:
>:O >>>> *facepalm* >>>> pathetic/retard etc.
I think most disengage by the *facepalm* stage.
Speaking of math where is Incision?
Where is such a premise? Where do you see a premise, in the single premise argument, which states that the "number 2" is a a subset of "numbers divisible by 2"? The conclusion in the single premise argument doesn't tell us whether 2 is even - it tells us that 2 is even if it is divisible by 2 (which, in the single premise argument isn't known).
Quoting Benkei
But the conclusion IS the conditional statement "if 2 is divisible by 2, then 2 is even" - this seems to be the part that you do not get.
Quoting Benkei
This would be a two-premise argument.
Quoting Benkei
LOL! >:O As if I ever claimed it was. But look -
Definition: Set_1 = {banana, coconut, strawberry}
Definition: Set_2 = {banana}
Premise 1: Set_1
Conclusion: If Set_2 is a subset of Set_1, then Set_2
Another one:
Premise 1: {banana, coconut, strawbery}
Conclusion: {banana}
Is this latter one a tautology? If yes, then the first one is as well. And it is a tautology because it doesn't tell me anything that I do not already know from premise 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)
Quoting Benkei
>:O Yes I thought yours were a bit too boring. But anyway, I haven't even insulted you, I showed you a video. Your own mind is associating an insult with the video of a movie - I wonder why it's doing that.
Quoting Benkei
Quoting Benkei
A slight alteration to the anti-life equation. Now knee!
No, no. It's dynamite Thor! He solves all of his problems with dynamite, and is himself immune to explosions (but maybe only his own dynamite? It's unclear), and flies by exploding himself along.
never heard of him before
He's from the golden age, where anything could happen.
I'm not sure, I haven't actually read his comics, I just read an article about hilarious golden age super heroes, and just couldn't stop laughing.
It found a page that say's his first appearance was in weird comics issue #6.
To fly around with farts or dynamite explosions lol.
I think that being "immune to explosions" rather than like, invulnerable, or having a high durability to just be really funny.
People say that, but what about One Punch Man?
I don't know what you mean... but One Punch Man took the world by storm by doing something everyone always said would never work.
He's indestructible, and never at risk. Always leagues ahead of everyone else, not only unbeatable, by able to obliterate every opponent he faces with one punch.
Similarly people are said to like under dog stories, and Disney was delivering them in the 80s and early 90s, but then they began with the royalty, and nobility, and took the world by storm. Though, Aristotle could have told you that one.
But he wasn't invulnerable, the drama in the story was based around an actual risk to his life by an equal opponent.
At least in the first season, I have only seen the first season.
One punch man craves recognition.
The secrete to one punch man's power.
Is he manipulated or defeated by wanting recognition? Is it a vulnerability? Isn't it actually the case that when he showed up and made everyone look bad that he claimed that he barely did anything, and just likes to take all of the credit, because he's a dick?
Quite to the contrary, the physical and emotional vulnerabilities of everyone else in their fights, and pursuits of goals are on display to show how he is never susceptible to them.
It's also never been about recognition, it has always been a hobby, for fun.
He joined the hero organization for some reason.
He also cares about his rank in that organization.
And he get's upset when he does not get credit for his deeds.
Yeah, he cares about stuff, and wants things, but in order for these things to be vulnerabilities they must compromise him in some way that could lead to his defeat. When does anything like that ever happen?
You can't simply count wanting stuff and caring about things as flaws...
That is true I guess, he has not really been exploited emotionally or psychologically yet.
Or at least I can't remember anything like that.
I think that potential to be exploited that way is there though.
It also makes him more relatable..
That and he has mundane problems too, that made him more relatable as well.
One punch man was also not always invulnerable, remember that story he told about the crab guy that beat the crap out of him.
The writers did not paint themselves into a corner as having a completely invulnerable character they could have him exploited psychologically and his back story includes vulnerability.
The show is definitely a very fresh take on the super hero theme though.
Far more of the story is about how he isn't psychologically vulnerable like everyone else is that's after the same things in the comic. They just focus on the fights in the anime.
I have never read the comic and did not realize that he was portrayed as being psychologically invulnerable as well in the comic.
I like the anime and I think it is a fresh take on the super hero motif.
I probably won't get around to reading the comics though.
lol
Reminds me of the walking dead, everyone says the comics are way better, but I still really enjoy the show.
Yeah that is a dynamic that the animated show does not really touch on in any way that I can see.
That also sounds like an interesting angle to explore.
Why does it seem so to you?
The rest of your comment honestly seems like nonsense to me. I don't even understand what you're trying to say. You're defining a logical tautology to me - which I know very well what it is, it is applied to propositions and it happens when the truth-table of the composed proposition only has true values regardless of the values of the predicates such as below:
A | ~A | A or ~A
T | F | T
F | T | T
Cool story! What's there to say with this though? What's your point?
Quoting Benkei
I never reconstructed a 2 premise argument as A therefore A. A single premise argument COULD be of the form A therefore A though. It could also be of the form A therefore B (which is a subset of A).
I said a single premise argument is a tautology. And obviously I didn't mean logically a tautology the same way a proposition such as A -> A is a tautology, where it is equivalent to ~A or A. I meant and I've explained this several times before that it is a tautology since it adds nothing to what the premise is already telling us. I could give you some bullshit argument like:
1. All numbers divisible by 2 are even
2. Therefore If Socrates is a number and Socrates is divisible by 2, then Socrates is even >:O
Great story! What do we do with it?
So tell me, what are these explanations that I will post below?
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
This contains a conditional premise "if x implies A" irrespective of your use of the word "therefore". It's bad grammar and logic. It's not only a conclusion and therefore not a single premise argument but 2. As a consequence, you're reducing a syllogism to a rhetorical tautology.
But let's ask the audience instead of repeating our steps because quite obviously this is going nowhere. Who here, besides Agustino, thinks I'm wrong and if so where's my mistake? Or are we just talking past each other?
Yes but if you analyse the truth table of the conditional, you'll see that the conditional can be true even if "x implies A" is false (that's what makes it a conditional actually). The only time when the conditional is false is if "x implies A" is true, but "X is true" isn't true. So it doesn't matter whether the antecedent is false. What matters is if the consequent is true when/if the antecedent is true. And it seems to me that the premise guarantees that the consequent is true when the antecedent is true, and thus the conditional is indeed true in all cases given the premise - and thus follows from the premise, logically. So I don't think it's "bad grammar and logic" at all. But anyway, this is what we were discussing ever since unenlightened posted the example...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional
X | A | X -> A (conditional)
T | T | T
F | T | T
T | F | F
F | F | T
That third case is the only significant one regarding the possible falsity of the conditional. So given the premise, it seems to me that we are guaranteed not to be in that third case. So in that sense it is a tautology. The conclusion is a restatement of what the premise is already saying. To wit -
1. Everything the Bible says is true
2. Therefore if the Bible says Moses is a basket, then Moses is a basket
If X is "the Bible says Moses is a basket", and we assign true to it, then can A "Moses is a basket" be false, given the premise? If no, then the conditional is certainly true, because those are the only other possibilities - we certainly can't be in that third case given the premise.
So the discussion started by asking for non-tautologous and non-question begging / non-circular single premise arguments. You are free to offer any if you want.
[i]All men are mortal;
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal[/i]
The conclusion of that is that Socrates is a mortal. Whereas this argument:
[i]All men are mortal
Therefore if Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal[/i]
This argument doesn't tell me whether Socrates is really a mortal, because it doesn't tell me whether he's a man or not. The conclusion is the guaranteed truth of the conditional "if Socrates is a man, then Socrates is a mortal" based on the first premise. I think the guy who answered your question also didn't understand this was the point you are trying to make.
The semantics might be a little different but I believe his point is that the form is the same. It's the same reasoning process.
In terms of the actual logic, it doesn't matter if you say 1) "A is B, B is C, therefore A is C" or if you say 2) "if A is B and if B is C then A is C" or if you say 3) "A is B, therefore if B is C then A is C".
So given that 1) isn't tautologous/question-begging, neither are 2) or 3).
Yes, I agree the actual reasoning is the same. But the conclusion is certainly different.
This doesn't follow. Their conclusions are different, once again.
So? The conclusions for these two arguments are different:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
All men are immortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is immortal
But given that they use the same reasoning, and given that the reasoning in the first is valid, then the reasoning in the second is valid.
And so in accepting that "the actual reasoning is the same", you must either argue that the standard syllogism is question-begging or that my reformulation isn't question-begging.
Yes the conclusion of your two arguments is different, but the relationship between premises and conclusion is the same. In the former case, the relationship between premise and conclusion ISN'T the same, to start with merely because the conclusion is a conditional and not just any kind of statement as in your last two examples, and it follows from a single premise, not from two.
[i]1. A
2. B
3. If A and B then C
4. Therefore C[/i]
[i]1. Socrates is a man
2. All men are mortal.
3. If Socrates is a man and all men are mortal, then Socrates is mortal.
4. Therefore Socrates is mortal.[/i]
This is identical with:
[i]1. Socrates is a man
2. All men are mortal.
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal.[/i]
I have been following this exchange for two weeks now and I have no idea what you two are in disagreement about.
At first I thought that disagreement was about pointing out an association fallacy.
From your point here .
But now I have no idea what is the problem between you two!?!
Agustino seemed to say something about tautology.
But this type of tautology certainly isn't the same as question begging so I am not sure what he is talking about either?!?
Have you read my post here?
Quoting m-theory
I claimed some one premise arguments are question begging, and they are all tautologous in the sense that the conclusion doesn't tell us anything more than what we already know from the one premise.
Quoting m-theory
I'm not sure what Benkei's disagreement is either to be entirely honest... I've just been busy correcting his misunderstandings of what I've been trying to say so far.
Fair enough. My point was that when unenlightened said: "p1. Everything it says in the bible is true.
c1. If it says in the bible that Moses was a basket case, then Moses was a basket case."
That reducing that to:
"A
Therefore A"
is false and tried to illustrate this with the examples I gave. So let me try again because I wasn't speaking about the association fallacy. We also disagreed about the effect of a single premise argument. I don't think unenlightened's "conclusion" is only a conclusion because it also introduces a conditional proposition "if the bible says Moses was a basket case". Rewriting that as a classic syllogism gets me:
If A implies B (Moses was a basket case (A) is in the Bible (B))
and if B implies C (the Bible (B) is always true (C))
then A implies C (Moses was a basket case (A) is always true (C))
Now, this might seem tautological due to the use of the proposition true (C), which is why I replaced it with numbers.
If 2 (A) is divisible by 2 (B)
and if numbers divisible by 2 (B) are even (C)
then 2 (A) is even (C)
I don't see how this can be reduced to "A, therefore A" as proposed by Agustino and although the formula of a syllogism is logically a tautology, it isn't a rhetorical one as Agustino's reduction is.
Does this make more sense to you this way?
I haven't proposed this :-} please do better than strawmanning
Quoting Agustino
I'm not straw manning. You're just cherrypicking from my reply to m-theory now.
You reduced this:
"p1. Everything it says in the bible is true.
c1. If it says in the bible that Moses was a basket case, then Moses was a basket case."
to:
"A
Therefore A"
I've explained before why I don't think it matters whether it's a single premise argument in your mind, because it contains two premises. You can deny this but I don't think it's correct. Given that context, you have been reducing two premise arguments to a tautology.
Why do you think that argument is a two premise argument instead of a single premise argument? Do you not think that conditionals can be conclusions? If conditionals can be conclusions, then that is a single premise argument, which is also a valid argument as I've illustrated through the truth table analysis above...
[i]Nonsense of the week[/I].
I think this is a statement of genius... it's just too deep for us... ;)
I don't like the far-right parties in Europe like UKIP or Front National - they're not my type of conservatism. Big on anti-immigration, pro-abortion, anti-NATO, pro-Russia, secularist - I don't like any of those. I agree probably on her anti-globalisation and anti-liberalism/progressivism, but that's about it.
Yet you would've voted for Trump! >:O
The only box he doesn't tick is pro-abortion.
Yep. Trump I would've voted as a middle finger to liberalism/progressivism over the entire world - not because I am in love with his policies. I've stated many times that Trump isn't anywhere near my perfect President. If Trump wouldn't have been the underdog with the hawkish liberals everywhere out to get him, I would've been even less likely to want to vote. Voting Trump is just to escape an otherwise inescapable hegemony of liberalism.
So you would cut off your nose to spite your face.
>:O if my face annoyed me enough, sure! But I don't think this is an accurate description of the situation. I have more agreement with Trump than with Le Pen anyway (Trump if more of a social conservative, or at least is surrounded by more social conservatives). Furthermore, Trump winning wasn't harmful to social conservatism - it's much better than Hillary winning. So it is a victory - though indirect.
I don't hope anything about France, I honestly am not that interested in their elections, because they have no greater meaning. Europe is still very far away from recovering social conservatism - social conservatism isn't even represented in the political sphere, much less winning.
Not openly at least.
Yes there are losses, but consider the other scenario - then social conservatism would have had no future.
A better alternative, then. And not just on that basis, but many others.
Which one was a better alternative?
I don't think that was a better alternative FOR social conservatism. The social conservative agenda is simply too important to the point that if the world continues to exist in material prosperity and the social conservative agenda is lost, then everything else is also lost, and not worth anything anymore. Of what use gaining the whole world if you shall lose your soul Sapientia?
But a better alternative nevertheless.
Quoting Agustino
But I can't even take that seriously. My initial reaction was that what you just said is laughable, but then it is quite disconcerting that there are many people who share those views. The world would be a better place without those views, or at least if they weren't as widespread as they are.
Well I wouldn't like to live in such a materially prosperous world with 0 social conservatism. I'd go become a monk in that case most likely. All the material prosperity you can imagine couldn't satisfy or replace my desire for social conservatism.
>:O
But yes, I agree with the gist of that, although I wouldn't go quite so far. I edited my comment, because I think I went too far, but I didn't edit it in time.
Yeah - but it is an important issue for many people. Just because you don't see it as important simply means that you have different ideals than those of us who do see it as important. In my opinion, the only reason why I remain in society is because I value the family, and family life. If it wasn't for that, and the intimacy involved, then I'd be outta here! >:O I have no need of anything else that the world has to offer.
Of course, and it works both ways. But there's more to it than that, as I think you'd agree... I could've sworn I saw one of your comments in which you decry relativism.
Quoting Agustino
Well, if it was really as lovely and agreeable as that sounds, then it wouldn't be such a controversial issue. Mentioning "family" and "family life" is a bit of a smokescreen, methinks.
Lolwut?
So are you saying all tautologies are question begging?
Are you making the point that categorical and propositional logic are not the same?
[quote=Zizek]Here, however, one should avoid the fatal trap of conceiving the subject as the act, the gesture, which intervenes afterwards in order to fill in the ontological gap, and insist on the irreducible vicious cycle of subjectivity: “the wound is healed only by the spear which smote it,” that is, the subject “is” the very gap filled in by the gesture of subjectivization (which, in Laclau, establishes a new hegemony; which, in Rancière, gives voice to the “part no part”; which, in Badiou, assumes fidelity to the Truth-Event; etc.). In short, the Lacanian answer to the question asked (and answered in a negative way) by such different philosophers as Althusser, Derrida and Badiou—“Can the gap, the opening, the Void which precedes the gesture of subjectivization, still be called ‘subject’?”—is an emphatic “Yes!”—the subject is both at the same time, the ontological gap (the “night of the world,” the madness of radical self-withdrawal) as well as the gesture of subjectivization which, by means of a short circuit between the Universal and the Particular, heals the wound of this gap (in Lacanese: the gesture of the Master which establishes a “new harmony”). “Subjectivity” is a name for this irreducible circularity, for a power which does not fight an external resisting force (say, the inertia of the given substantial order), but an obstacle that is absolutely inherent, which ultimately “is” the subject itself. In other words the subject’s very endeavor to fill in the gap retroactively sustains and generates this gap.[/quote]
Egad...I'd call that nonsensical, but that would be an insult to nonsense.
Egad?!?
What is this a 50s comic?
The short version is that a) there is no logical difference between the following:
Everything in the Bible if true.
Therefore, if the Bible says Moses was a basket case, then he was a basket case.
Everything in the Bible is true.
The Bible says Moses was a basket case.
Therefore Moses was a basket case is true.
And b), neither of the above statements are of the form "A, therefore A" which Agustino claimed.
So we have 2 points of disagreement that a) are logically the same (ignoring for a moment that one premise drops the conditionality of "if") and b) that neither are of the form "A, therefore A".
Ha. I thought that when I read his post only to scroll down and see that you'd said it.
No.
I'll need to read that soon :P Thanks!
What do you mean? Relativism is only a problem because it's used as a means of subverting social conservatism. So social conservatism is still central. If we were all relativists and socially conservative I'd have no problem - just the same as I'd have no problem if we were all atheists and socially conservative.
Quoting Sapientia
It's not a smokescreen at all. You can't talk of family or family life when there isn't devotion between husband and wife, and when having children and raising them isn't central. And it is a controversial issue merely because some people are selfish and they don't care about family - they care more about sex, and other material things. Hence you get the situation we have today.
You misunderstand what I meant here... I've repeated this multiple times already.
I agree with the other disagreement though. That's indeed the disagreement.
I could be misunderstanding it but none of your explanations got me to think otherwise. Sometimes communication just breaks down and we won't understand each other and that happens more often on a forum like this than anywhere else. It's precisely why I asked someone to butt in and thankfully m-theory was willing to do so.
Unless we're positing and talking about underlying psychological motivations that the person doesn't explicitly connect with the belief(s) in question, why someone believes something is part of what they believe, no? So if you understand what they believe about x, then you understand why they believe it.
For example:
Murray believes that his car is parked on Main Street, because when he returned home yesterday, he parked on Main Street and he has no reason to believe that anyone moved his car--he was parked in a legal space, no one else has access to his car, etc., and chances are that it's not stolen.
That's all what Murray believes, and it includes why he believes it. Why Murray believes what he does is part of what he believes. "When I returned home yesterday I parked on Main Street," "I was parked in a legal space," etc. are all beliefs, and they're the supporting beliefs for "My car is parked on Main Street." Understanding what he believes includes understanding all of that--otherwise you don't understand what he believes.
Now, if we're wondering about underlying psychological reasons that Murray believes that when he returned home from work yesterday, he parked on Main Street that's another issue. And this is especially pertinent when there is reason to think that Murray doesn't have good reasons to believe what he does, as in that case, some people who are familiar with what Murray believes might not know offhand the underlying psychological reasons simply by understanding what he believes. For example, maybe Murray is actually institutionalized, and he has no job, no car, etc., so that the underlying reasons that Murray believes what he does is that he's highly delusional, etc. For that sort of knowing why someone believes what they do, we need to have more detailed personal information about them, so that we have some clues about their psychological dispositions, quirks, etc. But that's probably not what was meant in the case at hand.
Hey, don't knock it: I could have said "thunderation!" :D
>:O
Quoting Agustino
I wasn't aware that he made them.
Well for example the video I posted of him supporting Trump against Hillary. That kind of stuff. Zizek isn't the usual kind of PC leftist. I am obviously not a Zizek leftist, but some of his anti-PC rants are useful - and even some of his overarching ideas (not the Lacan shit :P ) are useful.
Great minds...
I find those sort of truisms suggestive of relativism to be quite annoying. What I mean is that there's more to what we're arguing over than a mere difference of opinion and a difference in valuation. Namely, that one position is superior in some way, and to some degree, when compared with the other; and that one of us is right and the other wrong in certain respects. And obviously I think that I'm right and you're wrong.
So, I think that whether it's "an important issue for many people" and whether there's a "difference of ideals" is rather beside the point and hardly worth mentioning at all. We're also human and live on planet Earth, but that doesn't get the heart of the issue either.
Now do you understand?
Quoting Agustino
Ha! That "So" is completely unjustified and illogical. And no, you're wrong: there are many other problems with relativism besides the particular one which, for you, would be ideologically problematic.
Quoting Agustino
I still think that it is, in spite of your denial. This is just another example of what irks me most about you: you lay claim to general terms like "family", "morality" and "virtue", and use them as if they exclusively represent your personal views, values or ethics - which is usually where the real controversy is concealed.
Families come in all shapes and sizes. It isn't just limited to the old concept of the nuclear family, and need not involve marriage, a man and a woman, or children. I can indeed talk about family in this way, because it is meaningful, and because you aren't dictator over my use of language, nor anyone else's for that matter.
The connotations which accompany "family" and "family life" - such as a strong bond between individuals, cooperation, caring for one and other, looking out for each other - are not what your ideological or political opponents are opposing. These are shared values and uncontroversial. Hence my suspicion that your mention of these terms is a bit of smoke screen, concealing something perhaps more sinister, like outdated and prejudiced stereotypes and narrow-mindedness.
tl;dr
It's quite simple, really, and not worth debating. They simply don't mean the same thing (and this can very easily be demonstrated with a number of examples) just as "black" doesn't mean "white", "yes" doesn't mean "no", and "you're an idiot" doesn't mean "I love you". Hence your lengthy and overcomplicated defence is quite farcical.
Sometimes you should just concede, and this is one of those times. If any of you ever catch me being so obviously wrong, please promptly give me a metaphorical bitch slap.
But if one position is superior, what would be your objective criteria for establishing this superiority?
Quoting Sapientia
But it is a fact that we have different value judgements. Where the disagreement lies is that you don't yet understand that all ways of life cannot live peacefully together. My ideal society isn't your ideal society, and since we're both trying to activate politically for our ideal societies, there is conflict. You think that somehow your way of life and your ideal of society isn't harmful (I don't use harmful in an objective sense in these sentences because unlike you I will not take the unfair advantage of claiming superiority openly >:) - what I mean by harmful is simply frustrating towards the desires or value judgements of the other - making those values more difficult to instantiate) towards someone like me - and this is precisely where I claim that it IS harmful, and it subjects such a person to a sort of prison. Because this is so, how could the conflict be resolved?
Quoting Sapientia
I love the "outdated" and "prejudiced stereotypes" and "narrow-mindedness". Clearly you should try to describe me in terms I'll agree with. Do you think I'll agree with those terms? If I don't, then it's a waste of time. Why not talk about what you really mean lies behind these terms?
To be entirely honest, I think Zizek is just enjoying his rock-star status today - and he's achieved that precisely by being a leftist (which is popular) but of a different kind - which makes him unique and without competition.
Heaven and Earth are impartial;
They see the ten thousand things as straw dogs.
The wise are impartial;
They see the people as straw dogs.
Perhaps I cannot establish it, but that is more or less the [i]point[/I] to a debate such as this; not just to point out differences or point to the number of people who share or do not share a particular view or valuation. Otherwise it seems almost pointless. That's what differentiates debate from conversation.
All I can do is argue my case, but that is very different from providing a mathematical proof.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, but my criticism is that that is a truism. I'm not disputing that it is a fact. I'm disputing it's relevance.
Quoting Agustino
Of course I do. So, no, that isn't where the disagreement lies.
Quoting Agustino
I hope you have something else up your sleeve besides truisms. Or is this some sort of odd game in which we take it in turns to state a truism.
My turn! My name is not your name.
Quoting Agustino
It cannot be, realistically. There will likely be such conflict for as long as there are people living in societies where such conflict can and will inevitability occur. But it can be "treated" - reduced by conformity. So it is my hope that you'll somehow see sense and conform goddammit! :D
Quoting Agustino
Why should I try to make such a description in terms you'll agree with? I want you to reject this way of thinking on account of its faults. I also want to be honest, and so say what I think, even if you find it disagreeable.
I don't know what you mean about what lies behind those terms. Are you just parroting back my criticism, or do you really want me to attempt to answer that question? Not sure whether or not it's rhetorical.
X-)
Then certainly you realise that argument can do little. More important than argument is being aware of the ineradicable conflict that exists. Conversation defines that conflict and points out what exactly is at stake. It clarifies things.
Quoting Sapientia
>:O If the conflict is unavoidable and inescapable, then the whole notion of "treatment" is nonsense. That's why I think that all that matters is to get in the political arena and fight. Heaven gives and Heaven takes away.
Quoting Sapientia
But its faults are derived by presupposing your own value judgements. How do you suppose I could be convinced by such alchemy?
Quoting Sapientia
It's not that I find it disagreeable, I just don't identify with your terms in any way.
Quoting Sapientia
Well yes, an answer would be better. That way we can talk about them openly instead of talking about proxies such as "outdated" etc.
I then showed it to my wife: "Look, I took an IQ test and this was my score." She looks up to me and sighs: "we already knew you were smart." :’(
I think you should start making an exception for us folks on TPF.
Clearly my intelligence started deteriorating early.
No, not necessarily. A good argument can persuade those who are able to recognise it as such. Whether or not that is significant is arguable, and can be viewed differently from different perspectives and in different contexts. There have been exceptional arguments throughout history that have had a big impact.
Quoting Agustino
Not when those in question are [I]already aware[/I]. In that case, bringing it up would be redundant, and to keep reiterating the point in spite of this would be even more annoying. Yet that is what you're doing.
Quoting Agustino
Sure, whatever. But it helps if you clarify what needs clarification, and skim over what doesn't.
Quoting Agustino
I'm not sure you've understood me. No, the notion of "treatment", understood correctly, isn't nonsense. And if it is, then you've just implicated yourself in engaging in it, since you said that we're both trying to activate politically for our ideal societies, which is the sort of thing that I was referring to as a means of "treatment". When activism - which includes argumentation - is successful - which it sometimes is - then it "treats" to some extent the problem in the way of moving towards the ideal society. Each person persuaded to conform to the ideology strengthens the cause and reduces opposition to it.
But it is practically impossible to convince [i]everyone[/I] to conform, so the conflict will likely persist. So any ideological action taken can only ever treat the problem, rather than cure it. And, also, those who [i]do[/I] conform aren't necessarily "cured" either, since it's possible that they'll "relapse".
Quoting Agustino
Which seems to be more or less the same point that I was making.
Quoting Agustino
Alchemy? >:O
I would have to argue that my values are more valuable than yours, and that my judgements are better than yours. But whether or not you'll be convinced isn't entirely within my power. I might have no power over you whatsoever. It's a two way street.
Quoting Agustino
Well, what does that mean? If you don't won't to associate yourself with those terms, then that is one thing, but whether that are rightly used to describe your view is another. If you dispute the latter, then we can discuss each term that I used in further detail if you want to. I'm willing to defend my use of them.
Quoting Agustino
It's not a proxy, though. I meant what I said. It is outdated, given contemporary views, and given that these views have developed over decades, gained popularity, are widely accepted, and have taken root. Your view is reactionary, harkening back to a bygone era. Perhaps you would've preferred living in the 1950's, although you might not have liked the next decade, or the one after that for that matter. You might view it as a slippery slope, and decry modernity. If you do, then you should just admit to being a reactionary, since it best describes you, and stop treating it like a dirty word (although it kind of is, in my opinion).
Arguments don't persuade people regarding value judgements. One starts from some central value judgements and proceeds forward from there. You're doing just the same.
Quoting Sapientia
Sure if you want to put it like that, we're both busy trying to "treat" the other :P
Quoting Sapientia
To argue that your values are more valuable than my values is to presuppose your own values. Otherwise how will you argue with regards to value?
Quoting Sapientia
I do dispute it.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes your views are also outdated granted Trump's election and Brexit (Y) - time to conform, and stop clinging to a dying creed.
Quoting Sapientia
Just because my values were better instantiated at certain historical times doesn't mean that they - the values - are outdated. Values are eternal - not subject to being affected by time.
Quoting Sapientia
Reactionary doesn't simply mean to have a set of values that is different than the values to be found today, or that was instantiated at an earlier time. It's a word that politically is associated with certain values, values which i don't happen to share.
Yes they do, sometimes. Have you never reevaluated your values or changed your judgement, in part, because of some form of argument that you've read or heard? I have. What was once central has become less so, and that wasn't an isolated personal realisation. It was due, in part, to the effect of the "input". The "output" is my current ideology, based on a reformed set of priorities.
Quoting Agustino
A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down. Now eat your goddamn sugary medicine! >:o
Quoting Agustino
Well, you could argue in terms of consequence, for example. Or, as per virtue ethics, in terms of flourishing (which can actually be categoried as a consequence, come to think of it).
Quoting Agustino
Ok. Well you've discriminated against unmarried families, the families of same-sex couples, and childless families. I think that that is indicative of prejudice and narrow-mindedness. They are just as much a family as the nuclear family, which is a stereotype, and which has become outdated and offensive to many, much like the outdated stereotypes about gender roles.
Quoting Agustino
No, they're certainly not, and that's a crap argument, because Hilary Clinton won the popular vote by over 2 million, and 48% of the electorate voted against Brexit.
Quoting Agustino
I agree, but that's not what I said. They're outdated for the reasons I touched upon.
Quoting Agustino
That's a load of nonsense. What happened to the value of the slave trade, for example? Or of apartheid? Or of universal suffrage? Or of absolute monarchy? These values changed over time.
Quoting Agustino
I think I know what a reactionary is, so an explanation by you won't be necessary. What values do you think are entailed, and which you don't think match your own?
Sure but those arguments start from the values one already has and advance from there towards a reconsideration and perfection of the entire system of values the person is holding.
Quoting Sapientia
No, it actually can't be so categorised. It may be possible that following virtue gets you killed in the world - that isn't an argument not to follow virtue. Flourishing is simply the best state possible given the cards and constraints that you have been dealt - in certain situations, that may very well be death (think Socrates).
Quoting Sapientia
Yes I do have a problem with (most) of such arrangements. So why does that make my views outdated? People holding those views are just selfish and want too much from life. The purpose of family is to produce and grow children, and to foster intimacy between husband and wife, and to create a social unit which can act as one. If that wasn't the purpose, we would never have bothered to have families.
Quoting Sapientia
>:O Right - that's why Hillary ain't president, and Brexit actually happened.
Quoting Sapientia
Slave trade wasn't a value, it was a practice.
Quoting Sapientia
That's not a value.
Quoting Sapientia
This is a political way of government - again not a value.
Quoting Sapientia
A reactionary for example thinks that it is good for men to be promiscuous but bad for women to be promiscuous (as this is how it was actually seen in the past). A progressive (like you, Hanover, etc. thinks that it is good for both to be promiscuous and engage in fornication). I agree with neither - although if I am forced to choose a side, I'll always choose the reactionary, because progressivism is too dangerous - at least the reactionary contains evil within only 50% of the population.
Like this?
Yes, my argument is based on preexisting values of mine. But the claim of yours which I was disputing was your claim that arguments don't persuade people regarding value judgements. There are exceptions - meaning they sometimes do.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, it can be, actually. You just haven't understood, I think. Flourishing is a state that occurs, a causal event, a consequence. One flourishes as a result of something.
Your point about virtue getting you killed misses the point. I said that flourishing is a consequence, not that virtue ethics is consequentialism.
Quoting Agustino
Right - and that completely misses the point.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, congratulations. But those replies indicate to me that you didn't put much effort into understanding what I was getting at. They are not themselves values, but they were all taken to be very valuable in the past, although that then changed significantly over time. The one exception is universal suffrage, the value of which also changed significantly over time, but the valuation moved in the opposite direction to the others.
Point being that the values associated with those things changed, meaning you're wrong about values being eternal. Unless I misinterpreted what you meant by that. Anyway, there isn't much - if anything at all - that one can justifiably say is eternal, so you're probably wrong.
Quoting Agustino
But that isn't [i]entailed[/I] by being a reactionary. That is merely a [i]particular[/I] example of the [i]general[/I] of way in which a reactionary would judge something. The term is about the general, not the particular. If you have a tendency to judge things in that way, then you are a reactionary - even if you don't make or agree with [I]that particular[/I] judgement.
Quoting Agustino
Again, that isn't essential to progressivism. If we were to determine whether or not I am a progressive, that would be a bad way of going about it, since I might well be a hardline conservative, and that might be the one exception.
So, these examples fail to rule out "reactionary" as being a fair description of you in light of your general way of judging.
Quoting Agustino
You must have a pessimistic view of the way in which society has progressed over time, then. That is something I find hard to relate to. I could list countless advancements and reforms that have been of considerable benefit. We are a much fairer, more equal, and more liberal society today than, say, fifty years ago; and especially if you go back one hundred or more years. And we are much better off as a result.
Actually, his real name is Gerald. Isn't that right, @Hanover?
I remember these things. My memories of Hanover are like precious little jewels which sparkle in the moonlight.
Arguments which are based on value judgements people do not share cannot convince them, this is what I was trying to convey. If you want to convince someone you have to start from their presuppositions.
Quoting Sapientia
Virtue is its own reward, and as such the reward isn't a consequence of virtue, but virtue itself.
Quoting Sapientia
They are eternal in the sense that they remain potential values which will be re-adopted at one point or another. The values of a peoples keeps fluctuating through history. In addition to this they are eternal because they are logical expressions of ways of life.
Quoting Sapientia
I am a reactionary if I fit in with other reactionaries it seems to me. I've discussed with these people and I have less commonalities and more differences with them. I don't fit in with them.
Quoting Sapientia
What about my general way of judging is reactionary? I don't argue we should go back to the past because the past was better. Indeed, I make no appellation to the past. I just say how things should be now.
Quoting Sapientia
I don't think there is such a thing as progress (in terms of morals at a society level). History is an up and down cycle. These "progressive" values that you note today have existed in the past (in different shapes and forms of course, not exactly like today), for example in, surprisingly, the Islamic Caliphate at its peak, when Baghdad was the center of learning of the world. I think societies fluctuate in what they consider moral and immoral and will keep fluctuating like this for all of history. I don't view it as a trend. For example some people today live worse than people have ever lived in the history of mankind - think Syria.
Quoting Sapientia
And I agree with a lot of them - but I don't take that as progress, because history is not directed towards producing it. It's just a series of temporary events which will pass.
Quoting Sapientia
I disagree.
Quoting Sapientia
This is quite possibly true.
But either way, I don't think you're the first man in history who has thought that his society is the most advanced that has ever been. Indeed this has been a common thought for most people who have ever lived. That alone makes it suspicious - we tend to be biased towards what is familiar.
If the United States enters into a trade war with China, it will lose. It will fade into economic obscurity much as Britain has since the first War. Economic leadership will pass to China and India, with Brazil and Indonesia following on.
It will continue to look backwards to times of glory, and to blame liberalisation for its problems; it will continue its fall to the fourteen characteristics of Eco's Ur-Facism. It is too involved in its own myth of individualism, hard work and guns to vote for a better social agenda such as Sanders proposes.
US is pretty much already dead after Obama man. Trump can't do miracles, even though he's probably America's best bet. China ALREADY has economic leadership - biggest economy by GDP and growing at 6-8%/annum compared to US at 1-3%. There's no chance that America can keep up. China is strategically much better than the West - even if you look through history, you will see that by GDP, China has dominated most of history.
At its current rate of growth, if the US doesn't do something major, in 20 years China will be 2 times as big as the US by GDP.
Quoting Banno
Sanders is a fool though - he doesn't understand Real Politik.
"The mantis stalks the cicada unaware of the oriole behind it" ;)
Another chinese proverb... "why are the soles of one's feet paler than their face? Because they always keep them hidden" - China has always had huge ambitions, but unlike America it stays low (knows that if you want to rule the world, you have to wait for the stars to align), and therefore always comes out on top, because no one expects it.
With all due respect, what on earth are you going on about? Never mind, I just don't care, to be honest.
Quoting Agustino
Well, I completely disagree, because that makes no sense. If you should be virtuous, then you should be virtuous [i]for a reason[/I], and that reason would be along lines of the Aristotelian concept of flourishing. You should be virtuous [i]because[/I] you will excel, thrive, become a better person... [i]as a result[/I].
Quoting Agustino
You think that the great value that we once saw in slavery, apartheid, and absolute monarchy will be readopted at some point in the future?!
Quoting Agustino
"Fluctuating eternal values" which are "logical expressions of ways of life" sounds like gobbledygook to me.
Quoting Agustino
That's not as precise a method as the one that I described. Perhaps you're comparing yourself to people further away from you on the political spectrum, or whose particular views differ from your own, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you're not a reactionary: which, again, is about a [i]certain way of judging things[/I]. If you generally judge things in that way, then you're a reactionary. No ifs, no buts.
Quoting Agustino
It isn't always explicit. But, for example, your views about marriage and family were more dominant and widely accepted in the past than they are today. So saying that things should be this way now suggests a desire to fashion the present in the manner of the past. And that is reactionary.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, it can and does go up and down, but that doesn't mean that there aren't trends - there clearly are. There's no need to throw context out the window, either - no need to speak about "all of history" or on a global scale. British society has very clearly progressed over time in many respects. Or do you think that we haven't progressed all that much, if at all, since the dark ages? Now that would be ludicrous.
Quoting Agustino
History doesn't need to be directed [i]at all[/I] in order for progress to take place, nor to observe it and make note of it. Nor does it need be eternal. Where are getting these ideas from? Certainly not from me. And on what are they based - fantasy or reality?
Quoting Agustino
Then you're fooling yourself.
Quoting Agustino
Much more than possible. But at least you're not being [i]entirely[/I] unreasonable.
If you are called a fool [i]by[/I] a fool, isn't that more like a compliment?
Perhaps we could just call him a loser, and note as an aside that there is no virtue in winning without virtue. If bad policies are popular, and good policies unpopular, will you support bad policies and call it clever?
"Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; nor do we enjoy it because we restrain our lusts; on the contrary, because we enjoy it, we are able to restrain them" - Benedict de Spinoza
Quoting Sapientia
Have you read Hegel's Phenomenology? What method does Hegel use? Starting with the assumptions of non-philosophical man and showing how they collapse into the assumptions of philosophy. If you don't start from a common point there's no way to convince someone.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, that for me is without doubt.
Quoting Sapientia
Their instantiations in the world are fluctuating, not the values themselves.
Quoting Sapientia
What's that way of judging things? You should define this.
Quoting Sapientia
If they had never happened in the past, do you think i would never have adopted such views? For me, it's not primarily about the past - it's about what makes sense and what is right. I don't suggest adopting such views because they were our past, but because I think they're right.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, reversible trends.
Quoting Sapientia
Begging the question - that's exactly what you're trying to prove.
Quoting Sapientia
It's a true fact. There's many people like him but they can't last in the world of politics - it's just the way things are - they are almost guaranteed to never win. Saying that they are "good" is fooling yourself, since a society cannot live by the values advocated by such people who eschew the hard virtues and favour only an all-extending benevolence. Yes, an all extendend benevolence is good - in theory. In practice, all extended benevolence just leads to social chaos, and the fragmentation of society. Look for example at out of wedlock birth-rate in the US. What's Bernie gonna do about the morals of the people? Nothing! He's just gonna make it easier for them to have children out of wedlock. Sounds like the perfect solution to me. :-}
>:O >:O >:O
Quoting Agustino
...as if the US were entitled to premiership.
Are the virtuous, or the blessed in particular, better than the non-virtuous, or the non-blessed?
Quoting Agustino
No, I am fortunate enough not to have read anything authored by that man. :D
Quoting Agustino
The dialect was the method that he is mostly remembered for, I believe.
Quoting Agustino
Okie dokie. Only we've digressed so far from the original point that I've almost forgotten what the relevance of any of this is supposed to be. I just about remember: you claimed that no argument can change one's values, but that is proved false by the fact that it has happened to me. So there's no point arguing against that, since nothing you can say can change that. And your recent comments seem to bear no relation to our original point of disagreement, anyway.
Quoting Agustino
Cuckoo...
Quoting Agustino
Sure, add yet more jargon. That'll clear things up. :D
Quoting Agustino
I already have, as have you, effectively. So that shouldn't be necessary. I spoke of a desire to fashion the present in the manner of the past, and before that, you yourself provided an example of the sort of judgement that is characteristic of a reactionary.
Quoting Agustino
That's irrelevant.
Quoting Agustino
Doesn't need to be. In fact, that is probably true of most reactionaries (yourself included :P ). What matters primarily is likely going to be the subject matter itself.
Quoting Agustino
So? If, in general, that happens to be how things were in the past, and you want to change the present in this way, then you're a reactionary. How many times do I have to reiterate this point? It's simple enough.
Quoting Agustino
As do most others, including reactionaries. But that is beside the point. It would make no sense if it were otherwise. It would be quite unreasonable to want to adopt past views whilst believing them to be no good. I am generally critical of reactionary views, but I am not uncharitable enough to think so little of the people who think along reactionary lines.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, so what? That they can be reversed obviously doesn't entail that they ever will, and some changes are [i]very[/I] unlikely to be reversed. So to think that they inevitably will be is unreasonable.
Quoting Agustino
What? That you're fooling yourself? Or that we are a much fairer, more equal, and more liberal society today than, say, fifty years ago? Because the two are not equivalent. Or perhaps both? Anyway, clearly I wasn't trying to prove anything of the sort. I only went so far as to assert these things.
Quoting Agustino
:D
That's funny, for more than one reason. The question is, is it a [i]correct[/I] true fact? And if so, is it an [i]actual[/I] correct true fact?
Realpolitik is the day-to-day of political decision making, as opposed to the ideology and ethics behind it. Given the time he has spent as a senator, I think it safe to assume Sanders has some idea of how it works.
But Sanders is out to change moral and ethical premises; his fight is with the myth of trickle-down economics, to which Trump still adheres.
The fools are those who think that the situation will change if we give the leadership of the country to those who benefitted most from the myth.
:s No they aren't better - they're just more powerful (ie more free)
Quoting Sapientia
>:O
Quoting Sapientia
Dialectic*
Quoting Sapientia
I don't desire to fashion the present in the manner of the past... :s Where do you get that from?
Quoting Sapientia
Yes it does - by definition I need to desire to fashion the present in the manner of the past to be a reactionary.
Quoting Sapientia
As I have said before, you cannot claim this. If you claim this nonsense I will say that you also are a reactionary, because you want our world to become like Baghdad at the height of the Islamic Caliphate... Your values have also existed in the world before. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.
Quoting Sapientia
Actually, reactionaries quite often want to adopt past views, based on no reason at all - in fact they decry rationalism, and say that reason itself is the problem - see for example De Maistre or Cortes (who are reactionaries). So again, you don't know what you're talking about, you're just throwing ideological shit. I don't adopt such an attitude.
Quoting Sapientia
>:O
Why do you think so? The ideology is also relevant - some ideologies are just impossible to enact successfully.
Quoting Banno
I have no problem with his fight against trickle-down economics. In fact I support that. If you check my profile in the uploads section you'll see that I'm a kind of socialist. My problem with Sanders is his take on morality - that, and not his economics, is why I would never vote for him.
Quoting Banno
America to survive as a country doesn't need that its people are happy and live good lives with an equitable distribution of resources. The Chinese aren't happy and don't live good lives - at least most of them haven't until now. They've been working very hard and suffering immensely. I'm just saying this to point to the fact that America's national interests diverge from the interests of its people at this juncture.
Yes, but despite the risk of losing my voice, I like that we have the room in here to have lengthier shouts. It enables me to have discussions of a more serious nature, yet I have the freedom to apply a much less rigorous standard if I so desire. So I can almost be as lazy or facetious as I like, as opposed to being slightly less so elsewhere on the forum.
Slightly.
So tell me what realpolitik is. It might help me understand how you can accuse Sanders of not being able in that area.
X-)
Actually, I think realpolitik is an attitude where pragmatism TRUMPs ideology :D
Now I don't mean that one doesn't have an ideology - but rather that one is aware that victory in politics doesn't depend on what one's ideology is, so much as it depends on political tactics and strategy. To know realpolitik is to know that in politics anything goes. Sanders can, and often was, hit under the waist - it seems that he doesn't know and understand realpolitik. He's a very perseverant man though, who believes in the ideas he's fighting for, hence his current moderate success.
So you think that pragmatism avoids ideology?
Sure about that?
Interesting reply, but I disagree. It's implicit in the concept of virtue. Otherwise why strive for virtue? It isn't to be more powerful.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, that was a typo.
Quoting Agustino
From your views on marriage, family, and sex, for example. I already brought up those first two in answer to more or less the same question. Do you ever feel like you're going around in circles? It's like a failed dialectic in which we're going back and forth between the first two stages without making any progress.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, by definition, you need to desire to fashion the present in the manner of the past to be a reactionary. But that wasn't what I disputed, was it? You can go back and check if need be.
Quoting Agustino
Yes I can. I just did. :D
Quoting Agustino
What I claimed isn't nonsense. And you don't really seem to have taken into account my point about context. If you alter the context, then you're moving the goal posts. But sure, I wouldn't have a problem with that, if it is both correct and suitably qualified, then I am a reactionary in at least that respect. But it doesn't strike me as correct, because you'd have to disregard the context of my position in place of your own.
Quoting Agustino
I never denied it, but focusing on that misses the point. In the relevant context, my views on the issues we've been discussing are better described as contemporary and as corresponding with a trend which has become more dominant over time, whereas yours are not better described in that way - quite the contrary.
Quoting Agustino
I will look into those two when I have the time and the inclination. But for now, I'll take that with a pinch of salt and note that two examples isn't sufficient to support your claims about reactionaries in general or how frequently they do what you allege.
Well you may be right and it may have one, but its ideology is certainly not aimed at producing or leading to any kind of particular politics - rather its ideology is victory for victory's sake.
And what does it do next?
What it does next has nothing to do with pragmatism - it depends on what its ideology is. What it rules out is an ideology which cannot be implemented on pragmatic grounds.
We are conditioned by our nature to strive for power (which is the same as freedom). I buy into Spinoza's conatus. So I don't choose to strive for it - rather it chooses me. I would have to be deranged to choose vice - that would be like pouring poison down my own throat.
Quoting Sapientia
Okay but my views on marriage, family and sex aren't sufficient to qualify me as a reactionary. There's other, more important criteria at play. Such as what I think about reason for one, and the role I allocate to reason and rationality in determining what the future should be.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes but what can I do? >:O
Quoting Sapientia
You're a talker and a joker ;)
Quoting Sapientia
:s Well there aren't even that many reactionary thinkers to begin with. But fine - look at those thinkers and you'll see their anti-reason stand. De Maistre for example took Enlightenment rationalism to be responsible for the French Revolution and wanted a return to Papal and King rule - what he called "throne and altar". From here:
It did so in the two previous elections, but not quite as Sanders proposes, and it didn't quite work out. The failure is to some extent systemic. The system itself is perhaps in need of reform. That in combination with the right kind of candidate could do some good. We need more candidates like Sanders. Much of what Clinton said was right, but she was stigmatised from the get go. Anti-establishmentarianism seems to be what's trendy these days, which isn't in itself a bad thing, in my opinion; it's just that it has benefited the wrong people.
The problem isn't that the establishment is machiavellian - indeed the establishment must be machiavellian otherwise it cannot be the establishment. The problem is that the establishment has no ideology - it is pure pragmatism with no ideology, all talk no action as DJT says. It does what it's necessary to win (the talking) but then doesn't act (it lacks ideology).
Sanders isn't machiavellian enough to win. He has ideology, but what good will it do him?
:D
Thus forming the new machiavellian establishment: like the old one, but worse.
In politics you have to be machiavellian, otherwise you don't survive, and even if you do, you'll never win big.
My invectives are all really around the cultural condemnation of sexual sins. That's what I'm really demanding for. And think for example how I conceive of sex. I don't conceive of it as being just for procreation (which would be the typical view of the past). I conceive of it as being primarily a spiritual act aimed at intimacy. I condemn the misuse of sex precisely because it destroys intimacy. So all my views, while bearing resemblances to views you would find at different times in human history, are updated and renewed. Most Catholics would take my view of sex as heretical for example - maybe Von Hildebrand wouldn't, but he's the lone exception. To be honest, the views I'm voicing are quite original - you find very few people holding them, either today or in the past. In fact, I've found no philosopher EVER having those exact same views on sex that I have. Von Hildebrand is close, but I haven't read him much.
No, because that thinking is inevitable. If you don't think that way, your opponent will, and he'll eat you alive.
No I didn't say that. I said Trump has an ideology but is pragmatic. Sanders has an ideology as well, but isn't pragmatic.
America's best bet... >:O
@Banno - I've specified here that a pragmatist CAN have an ideology, in which case his ideology would determine what gets done after he wins.
I won 800 pounds on a bet in the UK (using 10 pounds) so it's good :-* It was with the Lads from Ladbrokes >:O
which is...?
I gather it is not trickle down economics?
Not so much, politics usually works like that to one degree or another. It's more that our politics has become severed from the identity of many people. The practicality of power has overtaken ideology and identity, whether as pretence or actual. Political identity has become severed from economics and the day-to-day life of enough people.
In the neoliberal environment, there's no identity tied to the economic of communal functioning of society. Any aspects of identity bound up with those ideas (e.g. racism, nationalism, workers rights, sexual morality, division of property, etc.) get separated out into their own individual social issues. Whether you are a "social conservative" (e.g. Agustino) or "social progressive (e.g. me)," you are understood to be fighting for your own particular social interests, rather than talking about values and behaviour bound-up with the social and economic function of the community.
The classical liberals like to blame "post truth" on postmodernism, as if ignoring the differences between people and their subjectivities would amount to respect for "truth," but the the culprit is really neo-liberalism. When economics become severed for identity, politics loses bite.
To make America - as a country - strong, both economically and militarily. Notice that nowhere is there something about the people there. As I said, the roads diverge - what is good for America isn't good for the people (simply because the people cannot accept the harsh reality - you'll never see the American people being willing to slave away like the Chinese - they're too well-fed for that).
The kind of socialist with the wrong priorities. The economics and the morality are connected, and the morality of his economics far outweighs that of your petty fixation on sex.
You would have my fixation on it as well if you knew how beautiful it can be ;)
But going back to the point, I agree that the economics and the morality are connected. Hence why I want Christian socialism for fuck's sake >:O
But this is the case. For example both you and I (I suppose) are socialists. But we differ on morality, even though we agree on economics.
Well, it wasn't catered to appeal to your tastes, whatever they may be. Perhaps you'd prefer something even more tasteless, like the dry analytic philosophy you seem keen to dine on. ;)
>:O
If you are thinking in terms of the neo-liberalist individualist consumer, sure. People don't have to think this way though. One may think communally and economically as well, such that social identity is bound-up with what is understood to deliver functioning community, rather than being some flippant conflict of personal desires. The point is not the social issues don't have distinction from economic ones, rather that they don't belong to separate worlds.
Yes, hence Christian socialism :D - I win!
So Sanders is a hopeless idealist because he thinks the US should have a common wealth of universal health coverage, education and support for the poor, of the sort enjoyed throughout Europe, Britain, Canada, Australia and other developed nations; that it is impractical for the USA to treat its citizens with common decency.
You elevate a slogan to an ideology, placing patriotism before respect for the individuals who make up your nation.
You seek to remove the 'elite' by electing to both the houses and the administration.
And somehow this is a christian socialist approach?
Then you're an exception. People strive for virtue in order to be a better person, not because of an impulse towards gaining power. And what you say now makes even less sense, since power has a tendency to corrupt, and that corruption is indicative of vice. Typically, those who are motivated by vice tend to seek power, and those who are motivated by virtue tend to be more modest - merely seeking self-betterment.
Quoting Agustino
Perhaps not, but it makes you a reactionary regarding at least those issues. Possibly others.
Quoting Agustino
We have divergent understandings of what it means to be a reactionary, and you're presupposing your own.
Quoting Agustino
Pay closer attention.
Quoting Agustino
Thank you.
Quoting Agustino
Ok, yes, that's actually a good point. Thanks for the quote. Tradition tends to take pride of place. But isn't that the case for you also, to a large extent? I guess the difference is that you [I]think [/I] that you're being reasonable. :D
I didn't say Trump is a Christian socialist did I? I said Trump is better than Bernie as a choice out of the possibilities that were there. At least he gets more of the Christian bit right - what use getting the socialism bit right if you don't get the Christian bit right? I mean shall you gain the world and lose your soul? Nah
Quoting Banno
And? You think Europe, Britain, Canada, Australia are going to dominate the world for the next 200 years? Nope. Nations rise and fall, and these nations you're mentioning are too focused on human well-being and therefore cannot compete with China who doesn't care so much about human well-being, because its people are disciplined and hard-working, willing to accept hard conditions as natural. The people of Europe and the US are getting too comfortable and hedonistic - such is what happens before nations fall.
Quoting Banno
No I don't, first of all Trump does this, and it makes sense, for America. Well-being isn't the only relevant thing in RealPolitik - more important than well-being is longevity and dominating your environment. This does require discipline and a certain degree of asceticism.
You don't understand the meaning of power as Spinoza talks about it. To be free is to have power. Furthermore power is a communal activity, since your own power depends on your community. So if you destroy your community, you are actually destroying yourself.
Quoting Sapientia
:-d I just showed in this post that my morality is not traditional and would in fact be considered heretical by tradition...
Quoting Agustino
Yes my views are conservative, that's for sure. But reactionary isn't the same as conservative. Neither do I belong to the Burkean/Humean anti-reason, prudence and tradition-based conservatism. I belong to rational conservatism. From here:
I think you misunderstand. One does not seek virtue. They act virtuously. Under these ethics, there is no striving or a conflict of vice because there is no temptation to be anything other than virtuous. One understands themselves and their well-being (within the context of the community), so the conflict of pursing one's desires or becoming virtuous doesn't arise.
Perhaps not. I haven't delved particularly deep into the thought of Spinoza. There might well be some value beyond his ridiculous theology, which is only of [i]historical[/I] value due to it's novelty. I've read better things about his ethics and political philosophy, and am quite interested in what he thought about power - it was of significance to Nietzsche, for one thing, and earned his admiration.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, well, your use of that term is problematic, because I instinctively conceive of it and use it in the ordinary way, as do others, so you're probably going to encounter this problem on a frequent basis. :-}
His "theology" is only the proof of materialism (and more or less atheism), but I guess that doesn't matter when the word "God" is involved.
A form of christianity that puts nationalism above charity strikes me as quite self contradictory. Indeed, I cannot comprehend how Trump is apparently thought of as virtuous in christian terms.
This conversation has reinforced for me the unpleasant parallel between the present state of US politics and Ur-facism: the cult of tradition, the rejection of rationality, the call for action for action's sake, disagreement is treason, fear of difference, the appeal to middle-class frustration, the privilege of one's country of birth, contrived humiliation by the enemy, contempt for the weak, mythologising the hero, machoism, the pretence of the common will of the people, newspeak - Eco called them all, and all are now in place in the supposed land of the free.
Yes, to some extent, you're probably right. But some go too far. There was a poll last year about what traits people want in a leader, and honesty and integrity came out on top and stood out from the rest. That explains to some extent the backlash against the establishment - people compare words and actions, and lose trust when there is a mismatch. There is also evidence that there is increasing distrust of the sort of politician we've grown used to, and tired of, so alternatives are being sought out; are gaining popularity; and are faring well in some cases.
But Trump isn't the answer. What we need is someone with as much appeal as Tony Blair had in the early years, as much confidence and strength of will as Margaret Thatcher, but, vitally, as principled as George Lansbury, Jeremy Corbyn, or Bernie Sanders.
This is not understanding RealPolitik. If you don't dominate the world, someone else will, and it may not be good for you at all. If that happens, even your own people won't be safe anymore. Even your own morality and well-being will no longer be upheld.
Quoting Banno
Charity isn't the only virtue. Much more important in this day and age are the hard virtues - discipline, strength, courage, chastity etc, - these are what is lacking today, not compassion. We have more compassion than we need in our culture.
Quoting Banno
The society you are imagining is impossible because it cannot survive. The mean and nasty will destroy it. There is no option in this world but being strong. Only strength, and strength alone, can protect a nation.
Yes. But one must also face up to the harsh reality. Change doesn't come easy or happen over night, and it can be a bitter pill to swallow.
Sadly, there is some truth to that saying: nice guys finish last.
All good Christians know that gambling is a sin. How will you atone for this? How about voting for the good guy (or gal) in the next election?
What good will not being afraid do to you if it means that you shall perish? I am afraid - therefore I survive. You are not afraid - therefore you perish. This is the logic of real politik.
Urgh.
Donate 10% to the Church? (Y)
(Joking) >:O - although I do donate 10% to the Church or to noble causes :P
Then will you make a donation to the British Labour Party? (Y)
Shaun The Sheep, despite the name, is not a sheep of any kind. But a sheep is depicted.
And the kind of sheep depicted is in fact a goat, like everything else.
@Agustino, as of now, it has been ten minutes since my last reply to you. I hope you're spending this time wisely - perhaps by making my suggested donation. Trust me, you won't find any Tory in heaven... not that you'll ever find that out. >:)
No, I don't misunderstand. But you, on the other hand, are patently mistaken. Of course there are people who seek virtue. There have been for centuries. Either you've been living under a rock all this time or you're kidding yourself.
Why don't you try coming out of the darkness, Willow? I can enlighten you.
The only? No, it is not. He attempted to prove:
[quote=The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy]...that God—an infinite, necessary and uncaused, indivisible being—is the only substance of the universe...[/quote]
Which is quite ridiculous and a fool's errand. You might as well attempt to prove that everything is Goat.
Not that i would call myself a "Christian" in the strictest sense... (despite being [s]indoctrinated[/s] raised Catholic, finding wisdom in the Gospels, and admiring most of the less crazy Christian mystics)
But... (and I don't mean to sound irreverent)... i mean, if Jesus wanted to schedule the Second Coming anytime soon or something like that... that might be kinda cool. I'd be ok with that. Not really anything on my calendar that couldn't be rescheduled. Not looking for anyone to get thrown into some eternal lake of fire or anything. More like Mommy showing up when your bigger brother is pounding the snot out of you for touching his stuff or something. Just kinda putting things right. And getting an ice pack for your head...
just one of many random thoughts.
It's the opposite of foolish. In doing so, he undoes the metaphysical blunder (equivocation between infinite and finite) which characterises most of philosophy of human history. He proves materialism (the metaphysical position-- a reality of a single substance) and (by the transcendent definition of God) atheism.
Since God (the infinite, necessary, uncaused and indivisible) has a nature that precludes being an existing state (finite, contingent, caused and divided), God cannot exist. There can be no transcendental realm. To be infinite, the change and division of existing states is closed. God cannot be or do anything in the world. Either would make God divided and caused, meaning God would not be infinite.
If God is Real (infinite), God necessarily doesn't exist and cannot be an actor in casualty.
Gerald.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-22/just-how-big-was-donald-trumps-inauguration-crowd/8201382?WT.tsrc=Facebook_Organic
George?
William?
Victoria?
1. I am Sapientia.
2. Sapientia is wisdom.
3. Therefore, I am wisdom.
4. Only wisdom is the opposite of foolish.
5. Therefore, Sapientia is the opposite of foolish.
6. Spinoza's attempted proof of God is not Sapientia.
7. Therefore, Spinoza's attempted proof of God is not the opposite of foolish.
Q.E.D.
Stick that in your lens and grind it.
Sounds like he knows as much about virtue as Agustino. Or Willow.
So she can help you make shoes out of duct tape?
X-)
Nor I. That Agustino sees Trump as a bastion of christian virtue tells us much about Agustino.
That conservative Christians have come to embrace Trump as much as they have makes me very cynical about their beliefs, at least when it comes to politics. It's almost as if the Republican party beating out the Democratic one is more important than any Christian values.
Hardly anyone noticed. It certainly was not a disadvantage in the election.
Why do you folk over in the USA care about such trivialities?
Quoting Marchesk
That's because liberals only have one virtue - an all-extending compassion and benevolence. They know nothing, and I really mean nothing else. They can't understand how strength is a virtue, they can't understand how chastity is a virtue, they can't understand how loyalty/devotion are virtues, they can't understand how courage is a virtue, they can't understand how discipline is a virtue and so on. They only have one virtue, which has grown to be so extensive that is has destroyed all the others, and therefore has also destroyed itself, for benevolence cannot ensure survival and victory, and hence cannot ensure that it will be maintained.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_virtues
Liberals can't understand Real Politik - for them, Real Politik is immoral. That's why liberals will never win the cultural wars. Their all extended benevolence has placed them in a straight-jacket, and of course they rationalise this by thinking of themselves as good guys, and then thinking how the good guys always lose. Yes if the good guys are dumb, they lose.
No, that isn't what I meant to suggest. When I said that you won't find a Tory in heaven, I meant to suggest that that is a reason to help remove them from power, and the best way of doing that is by supporting Labour. And one way of doing that is by making a donation. But I don't suppose you'd actually do so, or that you even like Labour. But if, as you claim, you're a socialist, then I think that you should support them, even if not financially.
Quoting Agustino
I haven't looked yet, but if I were to take a stab in the dark... is this, perchance, about sex again?
By the way, do you remember when, during the election, you claimed something along the lines that Fox News wasn't biased in favour of trump, and was actually presenting polls more damning of him than others? Well, as you can see below, it's business as usual over at Fox. They won't even defend [I]themselves[/I] against Trump!
[quote=BBC News]What are US media saying?
The new president repeated his low opinion of the media dubbing reporters "among the most dishonest human beings on earth". Mr Spicer vowed "to hold the press accountable".
In their reaction, major US media outlets flatly denied the claims made by the US president and his spokesman.
The New York Times, singled out by Mr Spicer, denounced "false claims".
CNN said it did not even broadcast the spokesman's statement live. It said the press secretary had attacked the media "for accurately reporting" and went on to debunk the claims.
ABC news also goes into detail to refute the claims.
Pro-Trump Fox News reported the claims unchallenged.
BuzzFeed News accuses Mr Spicer of lying and goes on to provide Twitter memes generated from his remarks.[/quote]
That's not so certain. Heaven gives and Heaven takes away. Us humans are like straw dogs - the best we can do is the best we can do, but even that may not be enough.
Ehmm no, as far as I remember no questions involved sex per se. Maybe there were a few regarding abortion, can't even remember.
Millions came together with massive resources and talent and they figured out how to cleverly create signs, make moving speeches, comfort one another, and make no difference at all.
A little late on the thread I know but this is one thought that I have found to agree with you on. Stranger things have happened.
Banno, maybe "disagreement is treason" in Australia but it is not here in the USA.
Having said that, after reading your words, I find it highly arrogant to think such a way, considering the way that the Australian government is treating the refugees that seek shelter on Australia's shores.
I am not here to say that the USA is perfect or that we know the exact way to move into the future but as God himself said "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself."
And please link me to the world wide movement, to highlight the cruel and inhumane way that Australia's government treats it's refuges. And please, have more respect for those who are in the detention centers, where women are raped and Doctors cannot report the abuse, where children who are born in the detention centers are issued a number not a name, that they ARE Australian refuges despite what your government claims.
Miffed Tiff
I got the duct tape but still looking for that "good woman". X-)
One question kept running through my mind which was: where were all these protestors in the USA, on election day?
A straw dawg?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_dog
>:O >:O >:O
Yes, Genghis Khan himself used to have it for breakfast! (Y)
>:O Sometimes Thorongil, I think these people live in fairy land. Honestly. They have no idea about the Earth itself! Forget the Heavens. They don't even understand the Earth! >:O
>:O - man has a tendency to think he knows when he doesn't actually know. They think there won't be an economic crisis, or they think there will be one, and so forth. Man is most terrible at the thing he does most often - predicting what will happen.
Our global warming may actually save us at some point ;)
Ha! Did you hear Trump's inaugural address? All the things which made America great in the first place, good trade relations with others, aid to others, charity, etc., Trump desires to put an end to, in some self-interested way. This is supposed to make America great "again"? I smell delusion.
Yes charity - exploiting millions of black lives to build a giant empire, waiting for the opportune moment to join two World Wars and destroy the opposition and then dictate the terms. That certainly sounds like what made America great in the first place was a lot of decency and friendliness :-}
Well as I'm the politically incorrect one all the time, it's certainly OK with me >:O
But not with everyone as you will soon see haha :P
Mongrel has learned a new word it seems! Great job! (Y)
>:O You're in love with Genghis?!
I always knew you liked meat.
Cool...Heister was corrected to Twister.
Those who have only recently been initiated to straw dog cannot read prayers I'm afraid. We'll be praying to Trumpus Magnificus and sacrificing a straw dog in the hopes that our Mongolia will be spared for the next thousand years! (Y) >:O
There's a fiber arts museum in Toronto. Have you been to it?
:-} This is certainly not true, and certainly not loyal to how Spinoza saw himself. Yes, he did think the concept of God that most people (including believers have) is wrong, but it doesn't follow from this that he is an atheist (in an unqualified way). Indeed being an acosmist rules out the possibility of atheism - Spinoza holds that something IS divine - namely Substance.
Now Spinozism is compatible with a certain kind of atheism with regards to the claims of official religions, there's no doubt about that. But that's where the buck stops.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope. Materialism, like idealism commits the blunder of assigning empirical meaning to the infinite. Yes, no doubt that "atoms and void" play the same metaphysical functional role that Substance does in Spinoza, or Agathon does in Plato - however both Plato and Epicurus ascribe empirical meaning to these concepts, beyond their metaphysical meaning. In so doing, they confuse and intermingle physics and metaphysics, and thus do violence to both the finite and the infinite.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
God cannot exist in an empirical sense, it is clear that God can and does exist for Spinoza. In fact - ONLY God exists.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
In casualty? Oh dear... This statement though is vague. God either can't be an actor, or is always an actor. God is everywhere or is nowhere. These are saying the same thing with reference to the empirical as they are virtually indistinguishable.
Cost me a few dollars for petrol and a round of drinks after. It was enjoyable, and invigorating to see how many folk turned out.
It seems that the number of folk who turn out to these things is important to some folk.
Hangover has forgotten that there are folks who live in DC. Not all 250,000 flew in.
So now I go back to lobbying, writing, sending money to political and other organisations. Turning up to a march is not all we do.
Oh dear... :-! These feminists? (watch from 1:24)
Or these feminists?
No it doesn't follow from anything that I am afraid of women. That's the greatest non sequitur that I've ever heard in fact. I'm against promiscuity. I don't give a shit if it's done by a woman or by a man, it's equally reprehensible in both cases.
Australian protestors had professional signs stating that the march in Canberra was to stand in Solidarity with the Woman's March on Washington.
With slogans like "WOMEN'S RIGHTS MUST NOT BE TRUMPED" on Australian signs? Why would there be any doubt? I think it was very much a part of the focus that once again the media is portraying.
Banno, I know you, I respect you and am blessed to call you friend. But for the life of me I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that the failure of the US President would ever be something you would wish for... :s
On the contrary, it is specific: God is not causal actor (state of the world is causality) because that would make God finite and not Real. Your analysis is the one vague here. We know that God can't be an actor and that God is everywhere (the infinite expressed by any state). To say God is everywhere or nowhere is not indistinguishable at all. In metaphysics, it has a clear meaning referring to the expression of substance in the former and the presence of an existing state in the latter.
You're peddling mystical bullshit here-- arguing as though the difference between everywhere (expression of infinite) and nowhere (not an existing state) was somehow unintelligible. It's a failure to recognise the infinite, remaining attached to the notion there is some way it permanency might actually exist, rather then being limited to expression.
You mean God is expressed in anything that exists-- there is only God, substance, in the unity of reality. There can be no other substance which is of existing states/casual actors (e.g. transcendent realms).
"To exist," to be a finite state, is the empirical. It's what God is not.
Indeed, but that's the entire point here. God is certainly Real, but that entails being non-existent. If Substance is divine, then atheism obtains with respect to divinity. All existing states (including worldly "gods" ) are not Real. Spinoza's divinity not only takes out transcendent gods, but also the divinity of any worldly gods. Since all worldly gods are finite states, they are not divine by Spinoza's terms. No doubt worldly "gods" are possible, but they are merely super beings.
Only by your very strange definitions. Spinoza would certainly not agree. But yes, if you give those strange definitions what you say does follow.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yeah I didn't mean this, quite obviously.
Tiff, The US is a great nation. But it has made a dreadful mistake in opting for Trump.
Australia has made very bad mistakes, too.
How would he not agree? Would he make the argument the finite could be Real? The trouble with definitions is they are defined in themselves. Someone can't disagree with them without using them.
If Spinoza is going to disagree with me (as opposed just make statements which don't address what I am speaking of), then he's going to have to say, with respect to my strange definitions, I am mistaken to think the finite cannot be Real.
He would tell you that God or Substence necessarily exist, and indeed cannot be conceived as non-existent. This follows from his definition:
"By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself" (E1d3) Spinoza
It is indeed only when you re-concieve the notion of existence as applying only in the sense it applies to finite and empirical states, that you create the conundrum.
Consider also:
"By eternity I understand existence itself, insofar as it is conceived to follow necessarily from the definition alone of the eternal thing" (E1d8)
"It pertains to the nature of a substance to exist" (E1p7)
"God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists" (E1p11)
And so forth. You're clearly using the word exist differently than Spinoza. Again your point is valid - according to your own usage of it. But Spinoza would certainly not use the word in this manner.
:-d more propaganda
I decided to make myself a deep-dish Eggplant Parmesan today. Its funny how much nostalgia is involved in cooking. A glass of Merlot from an inexpensive, but good California vineyard.
It came out good!
http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/49002#Post_49002
That refers to the necessary, not to the existent.
Spinoza does talk about "existing" at some points during the definition of substance, but what can this mean? Certainly not that substance it a state of the word. If this is so, how then does he disagree with me? His position has no disagreement with my point at all. He's just using "God exists" in a different way than I, one consistent with acosmism amounting to atheism-- where the divine is defined by not being a state of existence.
:-}
His position is consistent with acosmism, and his position doesn't entail that the divine is empirical, no. As I've said you are right, only that you've redefined the terms that Spinoza uses, such as "exist", in ways he would not have defined them. And Spinoza would have denied his position is atheistic. Atheistic would be there is no divine full stop. Nothing is divine, not even substance. That's what Spinoza would consider as atheism.
You, just like Trump, really haven't got a clue as to what made America great. And Trump, judging by his policies, doesn't even have a clue as to what greatness is, seeing some sort of selfish vanity as greatness. Oh how the greatness of America has evolved. It became great. It saw greatness within itself. Now it sees greatness as seeing greatness within itself. What a sad deluded state.
Working on this one for a while, eh?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, not really. All you've shown is how pompous you can sound.
However, having a cake and eating it too is simply irresponsible and dangerous.
The cake is a lie also.
How can everything be a lie if that is the truth?
Because it's doubly a lie. Doubly.
So having a cake or eating it, what is your preference?
What's the point of having cake if you aren't going to eat so much of it in one sitting that you hate yourself? And the only thing that will take the pain away is more cake...
The most simple and elegant criticism of consumerism can be found in the cake analogy.
Yeah, remember in the 90s when the big corporate distributors were beginning to use over seas child slave labour in appalling working conditions to make dirt cheap products, and then everyone just stopped talking and caring about that even though it just got worse and worse?
Banno, I appreciate and respect your perspective. Thank you for your thoughts.
I, just like Trump, understand RealPolitik - you don't. You live in pink-flying-unicorns fantasy land, and think that world is reality, governed by a progressive-liberal all embracing and artificial compassion :-}
Did you just meet me? If it's taken me this long to show you that, I'm not good enough yet. Better keep practising.
Quoting Agustino
Perhaps, because I understand realpolitk as a form opportunism. Have you found a way to distance Realpolitik from opportunism? Since opportunism is fundamentally unprincipled, it is inherently selfish. Have you found principles to distance selfishness from opportunism? If not, then all you're talking about with "realpolitik" is a form of selfishness.
Realpolitik doesn't necessarily imply opportunism. Opportunism is taking each and every opportunity available and using it to fulfil your goal/purpose. Realpolitik shuns this approach as naive and stupid, and ultimately contrary to the fulfilment of your goal/purpose. Rather one is to wait for the right opportunity before striking (Clinton doesn't understand Real Politik for example - that's why she ran so many times for President - she's stupid - you have to pick the right moment). Realpolitik isn't an ethics - indeed, it is an approach to life and politics that is above ethics, in the sense that a multitude of ethics can function along with Realpolitik. Selfishness is ultimately self-defeating according to Realpolitik though, and as such contrary to fulfilling your own goals, though it is an integral element in the functioning of most human beings which you have to take into account and, depending on the situation, even exploit.
Yeah, you probably should, as I was honestly expecting a better comeback than this.
Quoting Agustino
Nevertheless, seeking "your goal", unless it is well principled (meaning ethically) suggests selfishness.
Quoting Agustino
Right, realpolitik is all about fulfilling goals, regardless of whether the goals are good or bad, that's why a person of any ethical bent can use it.
Your talk about an approach to life which is above ethics actually scares me, because I think that you and others really believe this. How do we determine which people (tyrants) are allowed to rise above ethics?
Quoting Agustino
If you believe that line, you're falling for deception. Fulfilling one's own goals is selfishness, pure and simple. Whoever told that selfishness is inconsistent with fulfilling one's own goals has lead you down the garden path. I suggest that whoever told you this was only attempting to hide his or her own selfishness. Did someone tell you "you can focus only on fulfilling your own goals without being selfish"? If so, it appears like you fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. If not, I think you're just deceiving yourself.
And what, given Realpolitik, prevents my goal from being principled? :-}
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Exactly, but not quite. Realpolitik doesn't work with those ethics which are contrary to the idea of realpolitik.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, life isn't above ethics, rather an approach to problems is above ethics - meaning independent of ethics. So regardless of what my ethics are, I adopt Realpolitk. Nothing prevents me from being an ethical man however.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Depends, not in all cases. Maybe my goal is to help orphaned children.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, nobody has told me this. Goals are collective anyway, they always make reference to other people.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
:-d
I can't read the words "Fox" and "neutral" in relation to each other whilst keeping a straight face.
The fact that they all land so close, illustrate that they all have roughly 40% of policies/views that I agree with. For example, with regards to immigration, I agree with some things of UKIP, but not everything. With regards to health care, I agree with Labour and Lib Dems. And so forth.
What this shows more than anything, is that no party represents someone like me. Only 40% of my views are represented by any particular party. It doesn't even make sense for me to vote.
If you are interested in my views otherwise, this illustrates them:
I said that [i]both[/I] are at the bottom, which is correct. They are the bottom two, and the Greens came last. It still says something that those two in particular came below all the others, because those two are the most left-wing.
Quoting Agustino
It likely [i]would[/I] make sense for you to vote, [i]unless[/I] those issues are all roughly of the same importance to you - and I doubt that that's the case. You've already made clear that you prioritise social issues over economic issues. Hence, you'd rather vote for someone like Trump because of his anti-abortion rhetoric, even if that means that society would be worse off in terms of economic equality.
Mass repression starts in the USA
:-d Yeah sure it's certainly significant that Labor came at 41% and Tories came at 42% >:O
Quoting Sapientia
In UK I would vote Lib Dems or Labour. Definitely not Tories nor Green. The survey this was based in did ask me to rate the issues based on importance as well. The English Tories are fuckin corrupt!
Quoting Sapientia
Economic equality in and by itself isn't of value to me. It's a value within a certain context. If the society is strong, prosperous and virtuous, then economic equality becomes of high importance. In a society which is hedonistic, weak, and in decline, I don't give a fuck about economic equality.
Yeah 200 is certainly a "mass-arrest" when the protest includes 500,000 people.
Quoting Cavacava
Please, no more fake news (Y) You, as Trump said, are fake news.
And it's good that 200 were arrested. They should learn not to be fucking hooligans and uncivilised monkeys next time - there's consequences for behaviour in this world, unless you live in liberal-fantasy lala land where there are pink flying unicorns... :-}
Banno is not the Australian government, as far as I'm aware.
One of those rare moments where we're both on the same page...
Trump has done very well in uniting people against him.
These so called protesters deserve to be thrown in jail immediately. These are beasts, not human beings. These liberals are fucking crazy.
The headline:
"In Trump's America, 'Felony Riot' Charges Against Inauguration Protesters Signal Dangerous Wave of Repression"
full article here:
http://www.alternet.org/trumps-america-felony-riot-charges-against-inauguration-protesters-signal-dangerous-wave-repression
It ain't fake news if its true.
Which is why it's ridiculous. He was drunk on his own nonsense.
:-} says the man who has neither read, nor understood Spinoza
How do you know they were picked up indiscriminately? That's only your opinion. As for threatening them, if they break the law, they should be threatened. Furthermore, a protest should have an aim. Why are they protesting against Trump? What do they want? Do they want just to make life harder for everyone?! Because if they want Trump to step down or some stupid thing like that, you can bet that won't happen.
I can see no valid reason for protesting against Trump. None. These protesters are just sore losers and what they are doing is at least immoral.
You can't be serious.
The only way to deal with Trump is to keep him buried in litigation on every possible front.
:s So you are purposefully going to stop him from carrying out his politics? With full knowledge, you're going to do whatever it takes to stop the well-functioning of the country. If that's their plan, then I think they are petty and immoral creatures. Good that conservatives are smarter - we didn't act like such pussies back when Obama won.
But that doesn't stop people - [url=https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38134859&ved=0ahUKEwjyifeskdnRAhXDvRoKHZILAqIQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNFcu1CDhUs-FR9WW9NHATFRSYhZEw&sig2=_ZHB99HMa3_z9cntQqestQ]or governments[/URL] - from trying. Perhaps they'll find out the hard way.
YEA BECAUSE SOME OF YOU WERE TOO BUSY GABBING PUSSIES
Oh and this - this is how THEIR lawyers report it. What the hell did you expect? Did you expect their lawyers to say "Oh they were rascals who were breaking public goods, beating people up, etc.?"
Oh, yea and I mean our President
They did this politically in Congress. You're supposed to do that there, that's the place where you debate and engage in politics. Not protests. Protests must have a reasonable goal. Keeping Trump in a straight jacket isn't a reasonable goal.
Quoting Cavacava
:-} as if your liberal promiscuity is any better
Ad homenium
Protesting is supposed to be a right.
Regardless if others believe you have "a reasonable goal" or not.
They paralyzed this nation and I only hope that the DEMs can do worst to them any legal route.
I actually disagree.
I don't think the dems should be as bad or worse than the reps were with Obama.
I think they we should do it the rep way and let people see, again, what this leads to.
The only way some people learn is the hard way.
Hey m-theory...this is the shout box & I'm shouting
oh sorry
If you're going to protest in vain, then you're crazy, not to mention immoral and selfish. If that's how you see yourself, go on, but don't expect the rest of us not to take any action against you if you keep disturbing us.
Quoting Cavacava
And I might add that it's better to have Donald Trump recognise publicly that grabbing pussy is wrong than to have you and other Tinder liberals telling us that grabbing pussy is alright through your own actions.
No, it more reaction to what was said, there are a lot of persuasive arguments, but his position is too untenable to allow to go unchallenged.
Well obviously some cake can be eaten and kept. Just not all of the cake. Best to save some for latter.
Yes and rightfully so. That's what happens in politics. You should do the same POLITICALLY - not through protests and other subterfuges.
I think you missed the point.
Protesting is a right regardless is you happen to believe it is crazy or immoral.
You know our basic rights protected by the constitution?
Good, enjoy your right. That doesn't make you any less crazy or immoral though.
I didn't say the percentage was significant. The order is significant.
Quoting Agustino
You're a hard nut to crack, Agustino. I had you pegged as more of Tory. They're more socially conservative than other parties. And most Labour voters are strongly against Trump. And that's probably true of the Lib Dems also - which would make sense when it comes to immigration, for example.
Quoting Agustino
How repellent and unchristian.
Yes but the Tories are very corrupt, or at least were during Cameron's time.
Quoting Sapientia
You'd rather gain the world and lose your soul then? :-d
In the US people have the right to protest, it's legal and it seems as though protests are more successful for the people. Without protests I doubt we would have had a civil rights movement.
Hmmm maybe you need to subscribe - I never knew. Actually you can copy the link of the chart for simplicity, and we'll follow the link to access?
Is this protest by butthurt liberals who fear that their tinder lifestyles are a fantasy that Trump has unmasked? 8-)
~
My chart, for those interested in judging me:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-6.38&soc=-4.62
lol
taxless utopia is a realistic goal though and will solve all the worlds problems
Every time. The world expresses the soul. Without the world, all one has is a pretence of superiority and success, a fiction blind to the horrors committed in the world. The soul without the world is an apology for atrocity.
Good, then I wish you success :D
I'd rather lose the world than lose my virtue.
:-d I'm a socialist bro... Does it seem to you like I buy the idea of a taxless utopia in the first place like other economic conservatives?
This would be fine if it were true, but you also want to impose your 'virtue' on others.
Women's march recap: Protests make history as more than three million across the globe stand against Donald Trump
They got off their duff.
Trump's proposals for society are not very realistic either.
Liberals have always been known for being butthurt and crying like little children that the state doesn't finance their contraception in college and other shit like that :-d They take that for granted, they never question it's morality. That's also well known. I guess they should be treated with the same indifference and contempt that they treat those who dare question their morality.
They are more realistic than the alternatives though, that's for sure.
No, I will take political action based on my virtue, and I will desire that my community shares in virtue.
Sure.
Taxless utopia is more realistic.
And did Trump propose a taxless utopia? Nope.
That is what I said, you believe you have to impose your notions of virtue on others.
You preaches the same taxless utopia nonsense that other conservatives do.
No I should rather let my community fail and destroy itself, then I can die with it as well. That sounds like a good future, I'll certainly choose that.
No, he didn't say 0 taxes. Don't be ridiculous. He said a flat tax. That's not taxless utopia.
Now you have a martyr fantasy?
Yeah you are real practical.
It's not your virtue that's at stake, but rather the world in which other people live and express their virtue. You'd rather lose them and their virtue, for this narrative of transcendent soul.
So I have a martyr fantasy because I notice that I need my community to exist, and therefore if my community is hurt (or corrupt or lacking virtue) then I too lack virtue and am hurt? You don't know what you're talking about, sorry to tell you man.
Of course he does, he even dodged taxes for how many years and claimed it was because he was smart.
Trump preaches the same taxless utopian nonsense that the rest of the GOP does.
That is their bread and butter and how they get votes.
Ironic considering they are supposed to be more of a budget hawk than libs.
Which is true. Wouldn't you have done the same? If the state is run by incapable people who cannot manage money, why shouldn't you keep the tax money if you can do better things with it than the state can?
No I am not that far gone that I believe in taxless utopia.
Maybe I'll make that my next project. But it's not like I know nothing at all about it. Perhaps I've read enough as it is, and reading more will only confirm my current view. However much of a genius philosopher you might be, however elaborate your argument, and however you play around with language, [i]you can't polish a turd[/I].
There's no notion of transcendence here, only understanding that the community influences me, and a decadent community disrupts my own life. Therefore I must use my efforts to sustain my community morally. It's also a realisation that different ways of life are incompatible. Thus these butthurt liberals wishing to go back to their Tinder lifestyles should find another place for it if they can't win the political battle against me and others like me.
You don't have to believe in it to avoid paying your taxes. Don't play dumb.
Well the thing is you don't understand where Spinoza is coming from when he's talking about God. You think he's talking about what you're talking about when you speak about God. You don't understand his larger vision or the meaning of his terms. Neither do you understand what he's doing. He's not saying anything about the empirical world there.
You play dumb about the liberal position.
I can pretend like there is no nuance in the conservative position.
This is the post truth era we are in, we don't have to fairly represent each others position and it is an insult for you to suggest that we should.
Nonsense. Women, & minority rights were, and still are, hard fought battles. Morality is the question.
Do you think "alternate facts" are an alternate truths? or just a big fat lie?
Okay, I wish you goodluck with that approach. It's the post-truth era. Give me a break. This is the other fabrication of butthurt liberals who cannot give up on their Tinder fantasy, and therefore resort to condemning the Real world (calling it post-truth) so that they can save the truth of their fantasy.
Again the conservatives defend their fantasy of taxless utopia just as butthurtfully.
Please refer to this post:
http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/48964#Post_48964
Show me where you see conservatives in the street protesting almost naked, throwing stuff, breaking windows, screaming, shouting, cursing and so forth.
http://www.revelist.com/politics/america-responds-obama/5855
Obama severely butthurt the right for 8 years.
:-}
>:O
The fight for women's rights in the West has degraded into a shit show of stupidity in the last few decades. There's a kernel of work that still needs to be done, yes, but much of the rhetoric surrounding women and minority rights is embarrassing.
Hope that works out for you.
So I'm listening to NPR today and this guy is explaining that Trump's attack on the media is damaging for at least two reasons (maybe more, I turned it off because it was so stupid). He said (1) these senior Trump officials now attacking the press are damaging their reputations by questioning the press and (2) Trump's motivation for damaging the press' reputation now is to protect him from future attacks by the press.
Why is this stupid? It's stupid because it refuses to accept that the press' reputation is just as suspect as Trump's administration, especially in light of their open effort to get Clinton elected. Do they not realize that Trump would lose support if he took a conciliatory approach to the press because the press is so obviously biased and beyond trust? Do they also not realize that their suggestion that Trump's attack on the them is due to his fear of future attack by them, as opposed to the fact that the press really does suck, just makes the press look all the more in denial.
Right before I turned it off, the guy was saying that maybe this attack on the press will win support among the staunchest Trump supporters but really no one else. Whatever. I can only say that the more the press speaks, the more I align with Trump, and I was far from a real Trump supporter when this all began.
Can they just report the news? Is that so hard?
And I pointed out the protests to Obama's election.
Conservatives get butt hurt when you threaten their fantasies.
It's good to dream no? >:O
Taxless utopia might be a good dream.
But that does not make it realistic.
Conservatives are no different than libs, they get just as butt hurt when you threaten their pipe dreams.
That's not what you said earlier (soul rather than the world)-- what you express their is a concern for the world, not a soul that exists above any beyond it.
The notion of the soul separate to the world is quite an important point because it impacts how other people register to us. It makes an apology for anything in the effort to defend the soul. Since the world doesn't matter, there is no question or comprehension of the impact "the promotion of virtue" has on others, most specifically, their own well-beng and virtue. We end-up telling the lies like locking someone away or making them a social outcast is somehow good for their well-being (sometimes it's good for the well-being of others, but rarely them).
Rather than a concern for community (whatever that might entail), one worships an image to which the destruction of anyone and everything is an appropriate action. If people don't express the image, they shall burn and it will be good, despite that destroys alls sorts of virtuous actions and connections in the process.
No I don't remember conservatives coming out with 500,000 people to protest in the streets. Some conservatives may have protested, but definitely not such large numbers, and for so long.
Not according to your interpretation, but I haven't used the word soul with the meaning you assign to it.
She was called a slut because she exercised her constitutional rights by giving testimony to Congress
:-d
By a guy who has been treated several times for Oxycontin abuse. He doesn't even understand that taking birth control pills is something you have do on a regular schedule. It is not about the number of sex partners a person has, it is about their proper use.
Yes what did she give testimony to Congress about? That it takes her an entire summer's salary to have sex while in college >:O
Quoting Cavacava
Why does she need birth control to be financed by the state? If she wants to have sex (especially in immoral ways) she should pay for it.
The soul is just a myth. But if you mean something like my conscience, then my conscience would be fine. It is yours which needs examining. Didn't Christ teach to help the sinful, rather than look away in disgust? The Good Samaritan took pity on the traveller and helped him. That was his main concern. He didn't exclaim "Fuck him!" and walk on by. And there are biblical accounts of Jesus helping the sinful, rather than judging or turning a blind eye.
And did the woman who commit adultery, when she was helped and saved by Christ, did she go like "No it's my right to commit adultery, I'm free to do with my body whatever I want!!!!" ? >:O
Ironically, [i]you[/I] don't know any of what you've accused me of. How can you? I haven't revealed to you my understanding in any detail. You're just [I]assuming[/I]. Either that or you're a mind reader.
I'm assuming based on your own writing. It's clear to me that you don't have a clue as to what Spinoza means when he's saying that God necessarily exists. That's why you think it ridiculous in fact.
:-} What is clear to any observer is that what is ridiculous is the person claiming something is ridiculous without being able to provide reason as to why it is ridiculous. You just claim Spinoza's statement is ridiculous and expect us to believe you have the right notion of God that Spinoza was using...
Jesus the BDSM daddy.
Stop watching porn! :-}
I love Jesus, stop being so sensitive >:O
I was joking, but how else would you know about BDSM Mr. Heister? >:)
How else would you learn/hear about it?
Well in my case, I learned about BDSM when I saw someone in highschool watching it on a school computer >:O - I was like WTF is that?! >:O
Who are you saying these mystical cake statements to? :P
And Christ asked of her "Whatcha gonna do with all that junk? All that junk inside your trunk?"
And the sinful women replied "I'ma get get get get you drunk. Get you love drunk off my hump".
Everyone, because everyone should know that you can't have a cake and eat it too.
>:O lol! But what is the cake that you're referring to?
Well exactly, now you understand why the sinful woman could be forgiven (she repented).
You haven't done a very good job of explaining to me that you understand what realpolitik is. So far I understand that you shape your goals according to the circumstances. This allows you to take advantage of the situation. Also, I understand that you are not confined by any particular ethics. This, as you say does not make you unethical, but nor does it make you ethical.
As an example then, suppose I am walking on the street and come across an unlocked car full of goods. Under the principles of realpolitik then, how am I to produce goals in this situation, if I am not constrained by any particular ethics? Why shouldn't I seize the opportunity to increase my holdings? And if it's alright for me to help myself to goods left unattended, why not smash the window of the locked car to get the goods?
Cake is an object. An object of desire.
Can desires ever be satisfied?
:s ................................................... I've never said any of this pure drivel.
Your goals are your goals. They are not determined by your situation. Realpolitik is the way of achieving them, not of setting them.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No I do follow my own ethics.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Then under the principle of Realpolitik you go on walking.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Well for one, does such a goal resonate with you? For two, there are consequences for it, consequences that will get in the way of the achievement of other goals you presumably must have - unless your life is all about robbing cars.
Before I answer the question sir, what is eating the cake then?
Have you forgotten where we are, dear? This is the Shoutbox. I don't expect much, and I certainly haven't even attempted to provide any reason to adopt my view. If I decide to do so, I'll create a discussion.
That is a mystery.
Can all desires ever be satisfied? No.
Can some desires be satisfied?
A girl you mean? >:O You should've asked her how she knows that!! Did you? :P
Yes. I didn't. No.
Quoting Agustino
I'm less bothered by the painless forms of it, but...I think I'm starting sound like some expert when I'm not, so I'mma stop while I'm ahead >:O
Quoting Sapientia
So, needs can be satisfied, but, what about wants?
Yes, the broad depth sports method worked well for me.
>:O
To be honest it's just strange how such things come into people's minds. I mean I wouldn't expect someone to naturally stumble upon BDSM by themselves without hearing about it somewhere or seeing it... especially a kid lol.
Any want, or some want?
Borat is all folly, and no wit.
It depends upon whether there's a fetish involved. I recently conversed with someone who eventually revealed to me that she has a fetish for vore (please don't look it up too much) and has had it since she was little, having looked at vore porn since she was about 7 or 8.
She may be pulling my dick with that story, but if you consider it for a moment, every super-weird-fetisher sounds like a fake. Although, the one "sexual" fetish that I have is decidedly less befuddling, so maybe I'm a bad judge.
Lol. That's some weird shit.
LOOOOOL I looked it up. I actually can't believe such a thing exists! And there is porn about that too... fuck! >:O
Quoting Heister Eggcart
What gives rise to fetishes? I don't have any as far as I know LOL. I mean I can't imagine how someone would have a fetish about being consumed... I can imagine how someone would enjoy being bitten on the neck, and stuff like that - (I like that) - but to desire to actually be consumed? :s
Care to mention a few?
Maybe I'm more of a Cynic?
Some, all, whatever floats?
All desires not involving greed, lust, avarice, and the other vices.
Quoting Question
Well my want to eat chocolate has been satisfied for today at least :P Some wants can be satisfied now, some can't be satisfied now, some can never be satisfied. Only pursue those that can be satisfied now and that are wholesome as Wos says.
Quoting Agustino
She said that she has 6 terabytes of vore porn on her computer.
Quoting Agustino
Some fetishes are pretty pointless and don't seem to affect anything. Others, like vore, do have some strange poetic undertones, at least that I've gleamed from it. And it's not about being eaten and consumed, it's more about being "unborned", going back into the womb, figuratively speaking, and dwelling within someone in some sort of blissful tranquility. There also is a theme of submissiveness, escape, protection from the outside world (by being inside someone, fully).
It's definitely weird, as Sappy wrote, but it's purely fantastical and physically impossible, so it's nothing to be worried about...unless your fetish is to be eaten alive by a cannibal *shrug*
But, that is just plain hedonism.
No because hedonism makes no reference to virtue, and no distinction between wholesome desires and harmful desires.
The distinction is on of excess. Tanha are desires that cannot be satisfied, whereas the good ones can be. The former are simply unrealistic, harmful desires. Things for which the outcome cannot be attained because it cannot be done, because it doesn't lead to the outcome you think it does, or whatever. Good desires are things that can be attained, are healthy, and truly lead to the outcomes, and proportions that we think that they do.
I refuse to believe that... >:O You must ask her to introduce you to that collection just to check if it's actually true... that is actually crazy man!
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Ok but why associate those feelings - like the feeling of being protected, taken care of, undisturbed by the outside world, fully fulfilled, etc. - with a set of physical events (such as being consumed)?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
>:O I've read about some people with this fetish in some news article actually... that was disgusting!
Stop judging when you definitely have several terabytes of conservatism porn on your collection of floppy disks.
Quoting Agustino
There's an inherently irrational association that goes on with fetishes, although the more rational ties into early childhood experiences and genetics.
If you're gonna call me Sappy, then I'll call you Heidi. :P
The body is the site where one is disturbed. To be consumed is to, quite literally, remove that site. It ends all disturbance of the body.
There is no such thing as conservatism porn by definition :P
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I always have trouble understanding this. Maybe because I'm a very orderly and rational person, so everything I do pretty much has a reason for it. I can't understand why folks would do stuff with no reason for doing it ~ irrationally.
Why not desire to die then? Surely if the body is the source of disturbance, death is the removal of that source, no?
A fetish doesn't require its doing to be considered a fetish. I mean, I can't even "perform" my fetish, so "doing" it wouldn't make any sense. One can also have a fetish of vore but never do it (because they can't, realistically), and thus it's moot whether such a fetish is rational, irrational, whatever.
But certainly this doesn't explain how a fetish arises - basically you're saying that there's no explanation for why someone has such and such a fetish - it's irrational. The association that forms in their mind between certain experiences and certain feelings has no explanation...
It would... but then one is no longer their to enjoy the lack of disturbance, so it sort of misses the point. That it's fantasy is sort of the point. Within the mind, disturbance is resolved, so long as the fantasy is enacted.
I'm not ruling out there being a reason(s) which facilitates the development of fetishes. Merely because the explanations surrounding fetishes are uncertain, does not mean there is no explanation.
That seems strange and has some Lacanian airs about it. But it's not convincing because apparently being dead convinces them that they won't be able to experience those feelings, but being consumed doesn't convince them that they won't be able to experience those feelings that they are imagining. That is very very strange.
Death is not part of the fantasy. The consumption is only imaginary. There is, in fact, no death at all. In the world, they are engaged in a fulfilling sexual activity. Within the fantasy, they are a living being completed by consumption.
It's not really strange at all. Indeed, by what the fantasy and the world is, it makes perfect sense. Only when one thinks the image of fantasy and the world (e.g. in the fantasy, consumption and death are linked as per the world) are meant to be the same thing does it seem absurd.
Pretty close. The fantasy is sort of hyperreal: the mind ceases to make a distinction between an imagined or world (being consumed and living) and reality, turning the fantasy into life for a little while. While the fantasy is never reality (nor really understood to be so), it feels like it is.
And I refuse to call you a man. 8-)
OK, sorry, I'm just trying to understand, and it's difficult because none of this makes any sense to me. If I understand then, realpolitik makes no assumptions about good or bad goals. It provides no principles for ethical decisions. What it provides is principles for obtaining goals. It does not focus on ends, it focuses on the means.
So we're back to my original question. Goals are fundamentally proper to the individual, you have your goals, I have mine, and every individual has one's own goals. Individuals may share a goal or two, but no two individuals have the same goals. And if we don't share the same ethics, then we share very few goals. Since realpolitik focuses only on obtaining goals (means), providing no principles for creating common goals, how is it anything other than a tool of selfishness?
For the most part yes.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Goals are already communal in nature as they make reference to other people or even necessitate other people. Thus your individual goals can never be totally separated from other people's goals, so the entire point that you're struggling so much to make makes utterly no sense. So let go, free yourself from it. My goal to get banker X to loan me money is fulfilled by me going to play tennis with him, his goal being to have a tennis partner. You're sweating too much from all this convoluted effort at misunderstanding, no need. (Y)
Yes but death could be imaginary as well - that's the point I'm making. Your position explains why they enjoy the fantasy, but it doesn't explain why their mind has associated those feelings with an imaginary consumption instead of with an imaginary death or non-being for example.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Well, one of my favorite political philosophers, Eric Voegelin, has a dictum - "Don't immanentize the eschaton!" The eschaton is taken to be, in his political philosophy, the state of the end times - the end of history (which is an ideal/transcendent, and can never actually be real within history - indeed that would be nonsensical). So Communists for example seek to immanentize the eschaton because they seek to bring their utopia into reality, and precisely this leads to totalitarianism, as reality never has the stability they demand of their utopia. And indeed he proceeds along those lines to critique all ideology, including a large number of philosophers, including, for example, Hegel. So folks like Punshhh and John would probably float dangerously close to being accused of immanentising Substance in the other thread - in the sense of making the logical, into the empirical, and the infinite, into finite - failing to recognise the distinction that Substance is precisely that which is NOT empirical.
On a similar note, I think fantasy (the Un-real, the imaginary) must be enjoyed qua fantasy. As you say the consumption must be an imaginary consumption - indeed it would be a fall into psychological disorder if the person tries to immanentize their fantasy - to make their fantasy real by for example actually arranging to be physically consumed (cannibalism). This necessitates that the boundary between fantasy and reality be maintained - that the fantasy be enjoyed qua fantasy. If this boundary is blurred, then the psychological health of the individual deteriorates. If this is avoided (immanentizing the fantasy) then fantasy can play a fulfilling role in the lives of people, even of married people - there's nothing wrong with role-playing, it's actually good, I'd recommend it to all married people :D
Maybe we all fetishize. We all take inanimate objects and idealize them, giving them a 'transcendental' significance much in the same way some people fetishize black leather stilettos. Think about your house or dwelling, and how you think & feel about it.
You're obviously wrong. Goals are individualistic in nature, they stem from our own desires. The fact that you live in a community, amongst other human beings, and you may see others as the object of your desire, or the means to your end, does not make your goal a communal goal. That another person may assist you in reaching your goal doesn't mean that the other person shares your goal. The other will usually want something in return, and that means that the other is just assisting you, as a trade, for the sake of one's own goal, and doesn't really share your goal.
Quoting Agustino
See, you have your own goal, the banker has his own goal. There are two distinct goals here. There is no communal goal described here. Your realpolitik, which focuses on achieving goals, instead of focusing on establishing common goals, or at least establishing compatibility and consistency between individual goals, is inherently selfish.
Are you purposefully playing dumb? It's my interest that my street is clean. I can't clean my street by myself, I require the help of my neighbours. Because we live in a community, and we share that space together, we're all interested that it be maintained as best as possible. Therefore we collaborate in caring for it.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes but my goal and his are intertwined. My goal isn't an island, and neither is his goal an island. More like links in a chain. They rise and fall together.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No this doesn't follow at all. Goals are always already common by virtue of others being interested in some way in them.
Moans out his disapproval with a sneer
He knows no one cares
But in his dreams he's a monster
Now you've described a communal goal. You all share the street, you all share the goal of keeping the street clean. It is this "sharing" which creates communal goals, and sharing is induced by moral ethics.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, your goals are intertwined, but without the morally induced "sharing", you might just as easily be lying, cheating, bullying, or threatening, to achieve your goal, as trading fairly to achieve your goal.
Quoting Agustino
That's false. Goals are always of the individual first. Others do not even know my goals until I describe them, or otherwise demonstrate them to the others. Then the others decide whether they are interested in them or not.
This is why you do not apprehend the inherent selfishness of realpolitik, you are starting from the false premise that goals are naturally common. But this is clearly a false premise, goals must be made common, and this requires the ethics of sharing, and assisting. You seem to believe that ethics follows from people naturally having common goals. But that's not the case, we produce ethical principles of sharing etc., then this enables us to have common goals.
You're both obviously wrong, since they're neither the one nor the other by nature. Goals are just goals, and can be either.
They would run naked into battle, screaming and waving their arms like monkeys.
Sometimes Mr Turtlehead would look deep into her eyes hoping to see a glimpse
Of the mighty million.
But it was more private than they realized.
And if the truth had been revealed,
They would have wished for a fountain of forgetting.
No it's not. It's induced by the realisation that we all have more if we share.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Maybe I would use those strategies if they had no further consequences (many currently unforeseen and unforseeable - but included the foreseeable one that I will create an unnecessary enemy, who will hunt me down or look for opportunities to do likewise to me). I did use those strategies as a child, but I learned that in the long run there's a lot more to lose (even if you do gain something in the short term), and immorality just never pays off.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No it doesn't require any ethics. This is included in the nature of human goals itself. They don't arise in isolation. You don't have X and Y goals in isolation of your community. Say your goal is to get buff at the gym - why do you want that? Oh because you want to attract the girls. How does that relate necessarily with other goals? Well the owner of the gym for once wants you to have that goal so that you can buy his service. The girls are also looking for buff guys so they want you to go to the gym. And so forth. It's not hard to see that any goal that you have is communal as it makes reference and necessarily inter-relates with other goals. Goals are necessarily communal, unless you're a Robinson Crusoe, and even then they end up becoming communal.
Then the Conservatives have that obligation. The opposition are also the parliament, and they have an obligation to oppose the government where necessary. And because MPs are representatives and not delegates, each MP, including the Conservatives, has the obligation to consult his or her conscience on such matters.
"So small an urn contains all my ashes?" asked Mr Turtlehead.
"It contains a flowering cactus planted by the Greek grocer." said the ghost.
Mr Turtlehead tried to make a space between himself and the urn as the ghost looked away.
"I would so love to be close to nature." he announced.
The bartender looked up at him and smiled.
The falseness of it mingled with the aroma of mold and death.
Well, not necessarily. It was certainly part of the manifesto, but it doesn't then follow that they were elected for that alone. Maybe they would have been elected even without that commitment.
But it was no use.
Kicked and scolded like a dog all his life,
He could hardly breathe.
"Wasn't that black lacquer?" he wondered.
But as he closed his eyes nothing changed.
His soul was the sound of oblivion.
And so I gave you a bit more slime
(Y) (Y) (Y) >:O
Okay I didn't mean useless in the sense an object is useless - but useless in the sense that an activity is useless. As in why are you composing it? Just for play?
I came back to my desk and realized I'd left it out. It was about snakes in my stomach and on and on... I got a composition book so I'd remember next time to conceal the truth.
:)
Now I'm SURE Heister will say something to me LOL... >:O
An unconscious yearning floated below the waves.
He wanted someone to say that he'd been tortured to blindness,
So he could deny that anyone can see.
when dragon fumes of practiced rage shook his jowls.
"You're as impotent as I am!" he shouted,
Pale as a ghost.
Nowhere, even in the basement, was there any trace of the truth:
That he was eating murder
and famine.
Make sure you get a good illustrator.
I'll buy it.
That's what meditation is for :P (becoming aware of how you feel)
But yes, I don't "do" free-style poetry. In my view/opinion, poetry isn't merely a passive endeavour where you write about things as they are - that puts you in the position of passive observer of a reality external to you - it's too Cartesian for my tastes. Poetry instead is the creative appropriation/engagement with reality - as such it is a proper form of art. In doing poetry one realises experientially that we are always already engaged with reality creatively.
No, I'm making a more significant point. Our goals are always communal to begin with.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Right... because absent the rapist, the woman in question had a goal to be forced by someone to have sex *facepalm*
I understand a communal goal as a common goal within a community. You understand a communal goal as a goal of an individual who exists within the context of a community. So all goals are communal goals in your understanding because all people live in the context of a community.
How does that get you off the charge of selfishness when someone is seeking to fulfill a goal? The fact that it is a communal goal is irrelevant, because all goals are communal goals.
I should've made it clear that all reasonable goals are communal goals - irrational goals like jumping off a building and so forth clearly aren't.
Sure, so? I presume that we're talking about reasonable goals, and not goals like committing suicide and so forth. Now I'm most certain we disagree about what reasonable means, for I see nothing unreasonable in Trump's politics. Reasonable doesn't mean virtuous. It means that they make sense. Suicide, in most circumstances doesn't make sense. Building a wall on the Mexican border to stop illegal immigration certainly does make sense - it is reasonable. Whether it's ethical or not that's a different story, but Realpolitik doesn't deal with ethics, that I remind you once again.
Quoting Agustino
I see no reason to exclude ethics here. A goal which appears to be reasonable to one person, may be excluded as unreasonable by another, on the basis of it being perceived as unethical. Do you not think that unethical qualifies as unreasonable? Or do you think that the realpolitik should pursue unethical goals because being unethical doesn't mean that it is unreasonable?
This is so naive it's hardly worth refuting. In strategy, there is no such thing as the perfect strategy, or the only right response. There are many possible right responses, and we lack the resources and capacity to determine which is the single best one. So the political struggle is largely for the implementation of one of the many right responses while out-maneuvering your opponents who are trying to implement theirs. Seeking compromise doesn't make sense - compromise isn't possible, since the right course of action cannot be determined. Furthermore, not acting can be worse than acting in the wrong manner (depending of course on a multitude of circumstances).
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
.......... I haven't used reasonable in this sense at all. I used reasonable the way reasonable is used when discussing strategy. A series of strategies are reasonable - not all can be implemented, and we don't know which, if any, are the best.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, not necessarily in a strategic sense.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
If you're doing ethics and talking about should, then yes. Will it always? No :)
There is no such lack of resources, and capacity to determine. That's the excuse of a quitter. What you express is weakness, lack of ambition, lack of will and determination.
Quoting Agustino
So whines the quitter... "it can't be done, it can't be done". When I hear that on my job site I have to step in there and show them how it's done.
What a turn of events. You've been arguing strategies for achieving goals, now suddenly you're whining, "...we lack the resources and capacity". Seems I have to go back to my original charge, you're nothing more than opportunistic, shaping your goals according to the situation. How can I make you see that you're just spouting nonsense? "Compromise isn't possible" because "we lack the resources and capacity". What a load of shit. All you've expressed is an unwillingness to compromise.
Oh indeed, but the thing about imaginary death is that it's not death. It's only pretend. In some cases, I don't doubt the mind has associated imaginary death with consumption. Imaginary death is not contrary to life. If one is only imagining death, it doesn't make sense to think one will no longer living. To do so would be to confuse fantasy with reality, not in the sense of the hyperreal, but rather to think one was dead if you merely imagined it.
I don't think the "why" question is particularly fruitful. It strikes me more a question of causality than anything. The right person, in the right circumstances, which then generates a particular association. No doubt some people might have responses with an origin which could be described in terms of goal seeking, but I suspect their is a great variety in such reasons and causal relationships involved.
More to the point, all associations in the mind come down to a brute link of identity, so I think the "why" question is without an answer. Even if we find some who's responses fit a "why" narrative, one is still left with the association of logical objects themselves. I mean why hold a fantasy of consumption to remove the uncertainty of the body? One could imagine just about anything to do this. Not only are their other ways of removing the body, such as imagining it is gone or present in a location outside the world, but one could be come consumed in a fantasy of just about anything to get their mind off being a body in the world. Why consumption? Well, there's really no more of an answer than the presence of that fantasy itself.
Here "why" is a bit of an ad hoc rationalisation for a world which doesn't make sense to someone, an attempt to shove a meaning that appears absurd into something which makes sense, rather than recognise it as its own. The fantasy is its own state and its own end, not something there to achieve something else entirely. Like any part of the world, a fantasy of being consumed is intelligible.
I don't think I've encounter him before. He's right about that. History never ends. I think it's relevance is limited to political goals though. Maybe it's a reflection of the naive political arguments of "everyone equal," "everyone free" or "everyone the same," since they only allude to some logical concept that never exists or really defined substantially (can we even call that "political philosophy?"). Political philosophers, to one degree of another, usually deal finite to some degree. Indeed, that's what they seek.
The Communist, for example, isn't trying to create utopia. They are trying to define a system of property and wealth organisation for the finite world. What leads to totalitarianism is the failure of the finite world to meet the finite political goal. When the attempted organisation of such a world fails, it falls into totalitarianism as those in charge try to force it into their liking, whether it be to the political organisation or a possession of wealth and power for their own greed. I think there is a bit of a tendency to reduce ideology to seeking "the end of history," most likely because philosophy (and its ideology) tends to be obsessed with totalising. In many cases, I think it missed that arguments which speak about the "end of history" really have a finite concern--e.g. Modernism is really about a technically driven society in history, Liberalism really concerned with particular freedoms of thought and action in history, Punshhh and John's mysticism is about the wonder of the transformative mystical experience in history, etc. In each case, the fantasy is a means of instituting or protecting a practice within the finite world. The "end of history" is sort of about making any other possibilities actions or beliefs unthinkable.
We are always role-playing. The thing about identity (in the social/personal sense) is that it's a fantasy. Not body or state of body, but a comprehension of a totality, marking a significance in the world, which holds outside particular finite states.
It's not so much "psychological health" that's at stake, but ethical behaviour and living. For a living person to arrange to be eaten doesn't necessarily involve delusion (they might know they will die), but it does involve unethical death and consumption of their body. Such a delusion itself (e.g. I will not die if I'm eaten) doesn't really have much of a consequence. It's only someone being wrong about one particular fact.
"Mental illness" is a fantasy. Not becasue people don't have problems in how they think or their brain works, but rather because it's an identity, a fantasy which is not an identification of something of mind or behaviour that ought not be there, but a way of conceiving a person in totality, of giving them a significance that marks them outside of any danger or threat a mental problem might express.
It's a fantasy where the boundary between it and reality is frequently ignored. The fantasy of "mental illness" or "psychological health" gets used in substitution for what's happening in the world (e.g. someone getting another person to eat them, having a particular delusion, etc.).
[hide]
At least there was nothing about pink ploughing in there (Y)
Even on a fucking chessboard you can't determine what the best course of action will be (at least until towards the end-game), and there's a finite number of possibilities there. How much better will you fare in reality where the possibilities are even more vast? >:O
What you express is nothing but sheer stupidity.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah I've met a few like you. The typical "cool guy" - they end up humiliating themselves more often than not (Y)
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No I'm not whining, I'm recognising our limitations, and that strategic situations are intractable - you cannot calculate what the absolute best thing to do is, there's always going to be room for doubt. Only a fool will deceive themselves that it's otherwise.
Quoting Wikipedia on Plato
>:O I guess our very own @Metaphysician Undercover perfectly represents the democratic man ;)
It doesn't. A goal could be set by a group vote, for example. That would be when it begins it's existence as a goal, rather than, say, a suggestion.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, even if so, that wouldn't follow. It could begin as just the property of one mind, and go on to become communal and unselfish.
Agustino's position might well be selfish and opportunistic, but this particular argument of yours is a poor one.
It's you who's implied that we need to determine "the best" course of action in order to compromise. That's where the stupidity lies. Doesn't "compromise" imply the exact opposite? Check your logic, this is what you argued: Compromise doesn't make sense because we cannot determine "the right course of action". We cannot determine "the right" course of action because we haven't the capacity to determine "the best" course of action.
See, you've define "the best" as something impossible. Then you equated "the right" with "the best", so that "the right" is now impossible. This leaves you, always wrong, by your own logic. Do you desire to dwell in that position, of being always wrong?
I'm just trying to point out to you Agustino, that you're trying to defend an untenable position. It's untenable because it's irrational, based in contradiction. You have said that realpolitik focuses on achieving goals. That is a description of human activity. Then you said that it is above, or beyond, unrelated to, moral ethics. But moral ethics is involved in judging the right or wrong of human activity. Therefore you have implied that there is human activity which cannot be judged for right or wrong. You can make that assertion to me, as many times as you want, now go convince the judge. Your assertions, "I'm engaged in activity which cannot be judged for right or wrong", will make a fine defence, when you've just demonstrated that you're always wrong.;
Sure, but don't you think it needs to be proposed before it's voted on.
Quoting Sapientia
That's exactly the point I'm making. We need to go through the procedure of making a personal goal into a communal goal, before actually acting directly on fulfilling the goal, in order that our activities are not selfish. This procedure consists of establishing compatibility with the goals of others, compromise etc..
Edit: Agustino argued that all goals are naturally communal goals.
If my course of action, and your course of action, are part of the set of possible/reasonable courses of action, what's there to compromise?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No that's your misrepresentation. The best doesn't exist. The right is a set of possible moves. If you have one of those moves, then go out and seek to implement it, nothing to be compromising about.
It seems your irrational attachment to democracy is getting the best of your reason.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It's kind of boring to deal with repetitive misrepresentations. Realpolitik is a means of achieving goals (speaking here only of rational goals - those which increase power - not irrational and self-destructive goals like cutting your head off, or being eaten alive). Realpolitik is unrelated to ethics, in that one can uphold realpolitik without being ethical. Moral ethics may be involved in judging what is morally right or wrong, but what does that have to do with Realpolitik again? Yes, the actions of Realpolitik can be judged to be right or wrong, morally speaking, so?! What the hell is your point? You don't even know what you're talking about. As Trump said... >:O
More important than that - who gives a shit how a goal begins? :s All that matters is whether the goal functions constructively in society or destructively. MU doesn't even know what he's talking about.
Was probably a step too far.
He sipped his coffee,
Trying separate the poem from the poet.
Yeah, good points. Anyway, I've just found out that the Brexit ruling doesn't effect whether or not we'll actually leave the EU, but rather [I]how[/I] we'll go about it. So it'll be honoured either way. So I'm pleased with this result which means that the Tory government doesn't get to dictate the terms.
Why do you two keep coming out with these obviously false statements? What, so there can be no such thing as a private individual goal that no one else is interested in?
I don't know, but I [i]do[/I] know that all good turtleheads are turtleheads, and that no turtlehead can have his cake and eat it.
If I knew that I wouldn't keep coming out with obviously false statements. Obviously ;)
Quoting Sapientia
There can be, but so long as someone is in society, this goal necessarily will inter-relate with other people's goals.
Yes, not necessarily, and yes, that doesn't follow. But neither of those is what I claimed or implied.
Yes, they might have been elected without that commitment. But lots of people voted for them because of that commitment.
It only seems useless to people who don't know about slimecraft: the ancient art of crafting useful objects out of slime. It's one of my favourite activities, and I dedicate much of my time towards it. In fact, whenever I'm not on here, I'm slimecrafting. I crafted all of the furniture for my flat out of slime, and my flat itself was constructed out of slime. I once produced an almost exact replica of the Mona Lisa, made entirely out of slime.
Yes, but at that prior stage, it'd be a proposal, not a goal.
Quoting Agustino
Well, you two seemed to care enough to argue over it, and I've gotten myself involved, too. But yeah, it does seem kinda trivial. I just like sticking my oar in to let people know when they're wrong. X-)
I hate Poe's prosody.
Why must we include South Beach in that example? :s
I have a feeling that lone weigh station just before the state line in the middle of the desert between Arizona and California would be a LOT busier if your scenario was carried out. (N)
I see you've moved on from cake. Can you have an autistic person [I]and[/I] eat them?
I've fixated on the noumena for now. In a couple of days it'll be something else.
But, the fact is that you can't have a cake and eat it too.
Fun tautological statements.
I have no attachment to democracy. You've proven yourself wrong again.
Quoting Agustino
Yes you've demonstrated that quite well, the unethical may uphold realpolitik.
Quoting Agustino
So, how is increasing the power of the unethical a rational goal?
It is a proposal, but for the person who's proposing it, it's a goal, or else there'd be no proposal. To the others it's just a proposal.
My focus has been much more on history and politics for quite some time, but I'm going to look into the philosophy of Spinoza (again, but more deeply this time), particularly as it relates to God. And I'm in the middle of watching videos about him now.
Leibniz visited Spinoza as a young man, and said "He has a strange metaphysics, full of paradoxes. He thinks that God and the world are one thing, and that all created things are only modes of God".
Yes, strange indeed.
No, that's not right. The only part of that fist sentence you got right is the part where you say "it is a proposal".
The Dutch response to Trump.
As can the ethical for that matter - that's why Realpolitik is independent of ethics - if this wasn't the case, we couldn't say Realpolitik is independent of ethics.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
What do you think the best political system is?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Increasing power is a reasonable goal - it makes no reference to unethical or ethical. These are additional considerations.
I have no opinion on that.Quoting Agustino
Obviously, increasing power to the unethical is unreasonable. So as much as the will to be ethical is not the same as the will to have power, one must have as a goal, to be ethical, in order that one's goal to increase power is rational. Therefore a goal to increase power, which is not accompanied by a goal to be ethical is irrational.
Do you understand that goals always exist in relation to other goals? We talk about means to ends, but ends are always the means to further ends. The goal of "increasing power", on its own is irrational, because power is inherently a means. It's very similar to the goal of increasing wealth. Money is inherently a means. So to have the goal of amassing money, simply for the sake of amassing money, with no further purpose for having that money, is irrational. It's a mental illness, just like having the goal of increasing power for no purpose other than to increase power, is a mental illness.
I've never been to South Beach. Is it cool? I don't think they have the delivery system to reach the US yet. I keep thinking: why isn't this an Asian problem? How the hell does it become an American problem?
You certainly do, otherwise why dislike Trump's administration?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is full of your own assumptions. A being naturally seeks the increase of its own power (and by extension the power of its community, because its power, is, ultimately, an expression of the community's power). Therefore a goal of increasing power is reasonable.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I see you like infinite regresses ;)
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No it's not irrational - it's just unethical, and maybe short-sighted.
Did I claim that? Regardless, Trump was elected democratically wasn't he? How would a dislike of his administration, indicate that I am attached to democracy? To me it would indicate the opposite, that I see failings in democracy. And how would seeing failings in one form of government indicate to you that I have a preference for another form? None of what you say ever makes any sense. You seem to use some type of twisted self-serving logic, where you just make up random assumptions to rationalize your irrational thoughts.
Quoting Agustino
I'm making assumptions? "A being naturally seeks the increase of its power..."? You're piling it high today.
Quoting Agustino
No, I believe in an ultimate end, an absolute, but absolutes are difficult to define. You cannot be a quitter when looking for the absolute. We can say without a doubt though, that power is not an ultimate end. It is defined as a means. So anything which is classed as a power is necessarily a means and therefore cannot be the ultimate end. Sorry to have to disillusion you.
Quoting Agustino
As I said, it's mental illness, therefore irrational.
Perhaps because you haven't thought it through enough.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, probably, but that example isn't representative of all such cases, so it doesn't prove your point. Not only is it not impossible to have a proposal which isn't a goal for those involved, it is not out of the ordinary.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
In all cases in which what is proposed is not already a goal, in order to be a goal, and not just a proposal, it must obviously become one in some way. One way could be by group vote.
It would be silly to assume that the proposal is already a goal, or a goal in a different sense or context, since that need not be the case and would miss the point.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, you just can't make sense of it.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, a goal isn't merely something that you want, so your argument is bound to fail from the start.
I would certainly say that it is very possible to put forward a proposal which is not necessarily a goal. If I implied otherwise, then I made a mistake. But I think what is the question here is whether a proposal can follow from a goal. If so then goals may be selfish.
Quoting Sapientia
What is at issue is the accusations of selfishness which I directed toward Agustino. So you may talk about goals which come about through the means of a group vote, all you want, but that's not the type of goal which I am talking about. Nor is it the type of goal which Agustino is talking about, because that type of goal, which you are talking about, comes into existence through the observance of some ethical principles (following a vote). Agustino is talking about goals which have no respect for, nor relation to, ethical principles.
Quoting Sapientia
I am not arguing that the selfish goal is the only type of goal that there is, I am arguing that the selfish goal is a type of goal. So if Agustino wants to set a particular type of goal off, distinguish it from the selfish goal, as you have done with the type of goal which comes into existence from a group vote, then Agustino needs to describe how that goal is other than a selfish goal. Agustino claims that it is a rational goal, but I don't think that claim has been justified.
How about you read some Nietzsche or Spinoza? :-d Maybe if you actually spent your time reading philosophy rather than just blabbering what comes to your mouth without thinking about it, you'd see more nuance in these positions.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No I don't think a strong love for money or power is a mental illness, nor is it classified like this for the most part. Do you think, for example, Hitler was mentally ill? He was evil, I grant you that, but mentally ill - I doubt it. Someone who is mentally ill doesn't have what it takes to achieve power - mental illness is being dysfunctional - not having superior functionality. Although I will say that what is superior in one situation is inferior in another - indeed this is part of strategy.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I haven't claimed it is the "ultimate end" did I?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Because you take his administration to be non-democratic, clearly.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That's because you're not looking at what I write honestly and charitably... :-}
This is flat out wrong. I'm talking about goals which have no necessary relationship with ethics. For example, I can desire to become the Emperor of China to make China a great, strong and flourishing country, or I can desire to become Emperor of China in order to satisfy my own ego. Clearly it's the same goal, with different ethical principles behind it.
If you voted for Obama, like that thugs on the street, then you're one of them :-d How can you listen to this bullshit?
On another note - yes I am strongly against all those feminazi and their crazyiness with regards to abortion and birth control. Life is sacred, and these prostitutes who want to have sex without recognising its possible consequences should be out of civilised society. We're not fucking barbarians. We should all be responsible for our actions, AND held accountable. You want to have sex, you have to be accountable for it. That's how life is. You don't like it, no problem, out to the jungle you go. And take the other nutjobs with you please.
Why won't they survive? Because they have a very thin skin - just take their abortions away, and it's the end for them. End of the world >:O - they'll go naked in the street to protest...
Quoting Mongrel
>:O yes indeed, for the progressives, it's always someone else that has to be paying! (Y)
Mexico will pay for them! (Y) :D
I don't really get the question or your reasoning, but yes, goals can be selfish.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Ah, so you're arguing that a selfish goal is a type of goal, huh? I thought that it was a type of fish.
8-) - boss! >:O
I have.
Quoting Agustino
It isn't the strong love for money or power that I classed as mental illness, it is the desire for money or power for the sake of itself, that I classed that way. Which is what you were describing, power for the sake of power. Many people have a love of money or power for various reasons, whether they are selfish reasons or otherwise is another issue. But If you amass money or power just for the sake of amassing money or power, this I would class as mental illness..
Quoting Agustino
I didn't know Hitler, I'm not ready to make that judgement.
Quoting Agustino
Yes you did. You claimed that the desire to increase one's power is good in itself. Therefore your claim is that it is not sought for any other purpose, but for itself, because it is good. That makes it an ultimate end.
Quoting Agustino
That's ridiculous. What did I ever say to make you think that?
Quoting Agustino
As I've been trying to tell you, a goal with no relationship to ethics is nonsense. If the same goal can be related to different ethical principles, this in no way demonstrates that a goal can have no relationship to ethics at all.
It doesn't show 8-)
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes but you'd probably be alone in that classification.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
:-} Read some history then?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Cite where you think I claimed this, with context please.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I assumed that would be your criticism of him, given your negative views on Trump. If this isn't the case, then why do you view Trump negatively?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I never claimed a goal has no relationship to ethics. Neither did I claim that Realpolitik negates ethics. Rather I claimed that it is independent of ethics. An ethical person can adopt Realpolitik as much as an unethical person.
I get the impression that that's about as much as Agustino knows about goals, that they are a type of fish. I kind of had to start from the basics because Agustino insisted that all goals are communal goals.
Thanks for sharing that. (Y)
That "ministry of silly walks" bit... >:O
One could produce a list, but it'd be so long that if put on paper, it would dwarf size of the wall that Trump wants to build.
I'm really not interested in reading about Hitler,
Quoting Agustino
It's been the theme of our entire discussion, your claim that the goal to increase one's power is good in and of itself. You've claimed that numerous times, here's your latest attempt to justify that claim:
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
I view Trump negatively because you (as well as others) portray him in a negative way. Either your portrayal is wrong, or he really is someone to be viewed negatively.
Quoting Agustino
You implied that realpolitik is an activity which proceeds toward fulfilling goals without the requirement of any judgement as to whether the goal is ethical or not. And you seem to be promoting this.
Why not? Hitler is a very interesting character to study.
Quoting Agustino
Where do I mention anything about goodness here? :s You are just equivocating between reasonable and good.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Specifics please.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes. The user of Realpolitik can be either ethical or non-ethical, Realpolitik still works in both cases.
I didn't say "good" either. I said that it's sought for the sake of itself, therefore it's an ultimate end. As an ultimate end, I think I demonstrated that it is unreasonable. Therefore I think you're wrong in your claim that it's reasonable
Quoting Agustino
So, do you think that realpolitik is good then? Do you think that it is good to proceed toward fulfilling
goals without any judgement as to whether the goals are ethical or non-ethical?
Quoting Agustino
You describe Trump as someone who may subscribe to the principles of realpolitik. You describe realpolitik as something which to my judgement is bad. Therefore in my eyes you paint a negative picture of him.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Right.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Sure.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It can be either good or bad, depends for what ends it is used.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That would depend on whether the goal actually is ethical or not, regardless of what you think or do not think about it.
So it is impossible for the goal to be good if you don't determine whether it is good or not? :s
I agree about the vice.
I agree with that. But again, so what? It doesn't change the nature of Realpolitik, neither does it imply that Realpolitik is selfish, anymore than owning a gun is selfish. Realpolitik is a tool - it depends to what ends it will be used for.
100% :P
Quoting Agustino
We can say that it's not good for a rash person to be holding a gun.
Not necessarily. It can be rash, but it can also not be rash. It depends on the one who uses it, just like a gun.
Yes necessarily. "Rash" is usually assigned to the character of a person. and it doesn't matter who has that character, if you have it, you are rash. In this case it is assigned to the character of realpolitik, realpolitik is rash. So it doesn't matter who uses it, they are acting according to the characteristics of a rash person.
So if a non-rash person uses it? :-d
If Realpolitik is the gun, then the user is the one who can either be responsible or irresponsible. Likewise it's the user - NOOOOOT Realpolitik that is either rash or non-rash.
Anyway, I don't think it is possible to have a system of politics or principles free from ideological considerations. A "principle" itself is an ideal, so we'd have a contradiction there.
Quoting Agustino
As you described it, realpolitik is a view toward action. Therefore it is not like the gun itself, it is how one intends to use the gun, a behaviour.
Cite where this has been the case.
Just facilitating this riveting discussion. I'm emphatically not joining in.
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
I don't see why you have to interpret me so uncharitably. I never said Realpolitik repudiates ethics or is contrary to ethics, or considers ethics irrelevant... I said Realpolitik makes no reference to ethics.
I think notion is too ambiguous.
Politics deals with ideologies and ethics, I don't see how you can separate these things from politics.
So to me it makes no sense to say realpolitik disregards these things in favor of being practical.
Because politics deals with these things it would not be practical to disregard ideologies and ethics.
Maybe the term aims at putting aside differences in ideologies and ethics to accomplish a political goal, but we already have a term for this, we call it compromising.
A good read. Time to bite my tongue and just take out the popcorn? Just sit back and watch the enablers and 'flying monkeys'?
So according to point (2), May was suckered in by Trump, who will again turn on NATO when he feels like it. We ought point out the inconsistencies as they happen, in order to challenge his supporters. They can't effectively challenge or criticise, but can only walk away.
The marchers that so enraged him by being bigger than his inauguration set themselves up as targets; so we can expect further assaults on the rights of women.
He will dispose of his 'acquisition', Melania, soon. He will continue sacking anyone who attempts to advise him of things contrary to his desires. He can't distinguish between, for example, the reality of climate change and his desire that it not be so. He will soon turn on his close advisers, purging them when they cannot deliver his incoherent desires.
Quoting Banno
Assembly line abortions *cough cough* ... Tinder lifestyles *cough cough* X-) We all know what the truth is behind those empty abstractions Banno, you ain't fooling no one ;)
https://sojo.net/articles/american-christianity-has-failed
>:O >:O >:O >:O
Yes, because it's all about charity towards the devil. Have you forgotten when Jesus chased the money changers out of the temple with the whip and forcefully overturned their tables? Maybe you should study that a bit and think about it. As I said before, progressives have only one idea of morality - an all encompassing compassion and benevolence for everything, including what is bad! >:O
We.
Yep, what's wrong with that? You're misrepresenting Christianity, and you have a twisted sense of morality. For you, compassion is the whole of morality.
(My predicted answer: NO. Am I right? :-} Shall we check together what the Bible says about chastity then?)
Is "bibles" a codename by any chance? X-)
Yes, I'm working for Big Brother 8-)
That, becoming politically active, or:
"The only way to survive such shitty times, if you ask me, is to write and read big, fat books"
Trigger warning: Slavoj Zizek. :D
It was your suggestion, but if you admit to dickery, I won't contradick you.
Fear mongering? I didn't feel any fear from reading Banno's post. Quite the contrary.
I did man... you know my legs started going shaky... >:O
I stole it from my little sister, I think it's great.
Wife: Let's go out and have some fun tonight.
Husband: Okay, but if you get home before I do, leave the hall light on.
Did you hear about the blond couple that were found frozen in their car in am outdoor movie theater?
They went to see "Closed for the winter."
Q: What did the dick say to the balls?
A: "You guys hang around here while I go inside."
King Arthur was about to embark on a long crusade. Before doing so he called to Merlin to devise a cunning chastity belt for Gwenivere. The belt contained a miniture guillotine.
Upon his return, he called to his Knights of the Round Table and had them all strip from the waist down. One by one, he went to each knight and shook his head, telling all those whose members were missing to get out of his sight.
That is until he came up to Lancelot. Seeing that Lancelot was intact, he exclaimed, ''Now I knew I could count on you to be trusted. Name anything at all and it is yours.''
Lancelot replied '' UNGH!UH! UNGH!'''
I don't get this one:
Quoting Bitter Crank
I'm not surprised.
Better than not being surprised is enlightening me about what it's supposed to mean >:O
You don't get it or you don't find it funny?
BC don't be wimpy lol >:O
I don't get it
The husbands idea of fun does not include his wife.
Maybe. But it can also be that the husband wants the light on the hallway to be on because his wife is fucking another man (for example), and he doesn't want to enter on them >:O . Or it could be a million other possible things. Maybe the husband wants to know she's home so he can keep on partying, or go to the hookers, or who knows? That's why I say I don't get it. It has no clear meaning at all...
Or given the English expression it could be that his wife wants to have sex, and her husband wants to go out - it's so fucking confusing really.......... :-O
No it has a clear meaning.
The wife intends for them to have fun together, but for the husband fun does not involve his wife.
Not to me, I see so many possible meanings in it that I don't even know what to think lol... >:O
Maybe you are over thinking it.
The punchline is obvious to me.
Never the less... the humor in the joke is derived from the difference between what the wife wants (presumably to go out with her husband and have a good time) and what the husband wants -- to go out without his wife in tow. Like Tinder, your favorite dating site.
Possibly, but this doesn't happen with the others for me. I get them straight away.
X-) I see I see, nasty bastard that he is >:O
It seems like you are expecting it to be a dirty joke when it does not have to be.
An unimaginative business man decided to go shooting on the beach.
He was walking along and came across a naked woman.
"Hi. What are you doing out here?" the naked woman said.
The man said, "I'm hunting for game."
She said, "well, I'm game."
So he shot her.
"My brothers and I asked my mom who her favorite kid was and she said 'I don't have one, you're all equally anoying"
From the article you posted:
'There is something terribly wrong with playing this game of ironically making fun of Trump. You know, in medicine they call it symptomatic healing, when you take some things, they just neutralize the effects, like you have this pain, but they don’t heal the disease itself. Criticizing Trump is just symptomatic healing. '
That's telling.
Here's a man who understands Realpolitik. The West should follow his example. That's why we're losing, because our leaders and our media don't know what planet they're living on.
And if I didn't know that you're just playing the fool, I'd say your morality is a bit screwed up. Would you like being a child and getting beaten by your parents? No. So why would you think beating is good?
Discipline has nothing to do with physically violent punishment - that builds merely the appearance of discipline, but once the threat is removed, chaos ensues. The punishment Im talking about isn't physical - it's social.
Still, public opinion in Russia purportedly believes that reducing the punishment for violence will reduce the violence itself.
https://www.rt.com/politics/375306-state-duma-passes-controversial-bill/
Yes it is a controversial bill.
Quoting mcdoodle
True. There's other issues at play. If a neighbour slaps my son for trying to bed his daughter, then he gets fined. If I slap my son, I go to jail. There's an asymmetry there, which has now been removed.
:-d Yes, I'm sure if you were a doctor you'd propose killing people, that will certainly cure them of all possible suffering no?
Or if we have a village suffering of flooding, then we'll solve the flooding problem by destroying the village - great logic >:O
I'm not decided on such matters, but I tend to agree.
Well, technically.... >:O
South Beach California is gorgeous! During our National BMX riding days, we would spend at least one weekend a year at Chula Vista's Olympic training center and the weather is perfect, the ocean is clean and Mexico is within sight. 8-)
I am not sure why it is that this is an American problem and not an Asian problem but either way we will stand ready.
What are these "results" in concreto? There is no evidence that people change their behaviour because of torture - in fact, I imagine quite the contrary - they just learn to mask it.
Quoting StreetlightX
Terrorists are a national threat, and have to be dealt with accordingly. They are not citizens.
>:O
The punishment needs to be proportional to the offence. Punishing a disobedient child who sneaks out of the house at night by torturing him isn't proportionate AT ALL. :-}
I asked the question of my youngest indian whom will graduate High School this year, the same question that many of us have pondered, which was what one book you would save if you could only save one for all time?
His answer shocked me. He answered without hesitation "Wikipedia".
What happened to the Webster's Dictionary or The Bible?
I'd say that if torture is only intended as a means of punishment, then as I'd argue that it's always unnecessarily immoral :D
WOW! I want to read it just based on the summary. Where was this book when I was reading to them as they went to sleep a decade ago?
I ask you Dr. Seuss: Just how far will they get with "One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish"?
Yes but my assertion doesn't disagree with you. It may indeed be that no offence is sufficiently grave to deserve torture as a punishment.
No it's actually not all good at all. There are other psychological effects that are harmful that torture has, including the effects on the torturer himself. :-d That's why I gave you the medicine example.
I thought you like to separate political matters from moral matters, by claiming realpolitik. Why do you now put them back together, inconsistency, when it suits your purpose?
Because I have a code of ethics that is independent of my adherence to Realpolitik maybe? :-d There's no inconsistency at all there, it's just your completely uncharitable reading that makes it so.
Are you kidding me? :s Stop playing dumb. They'll not only be ashamed, they'll be fearful, vengeful, angry, hateful, and so forth. Are these good?! *facepalm*
A major problem with dumbass's ban is that none, zero, zip of the attacks in the US came from people in these counties. Dumb, explicitly demonstrates his racist intent.
Just like how chemotherapy effectively eliminates my stomach infection right? But why would I use chemotherapy to get rid of my stomach infection, when I could use a floopydoopdy antibiotic? Are you just that dumb?
Yes this is precisely uncharitable. I said moral/political. What does that mean? If you have to translate that slash in a word, what word would it be?! Would it be the word "or" perhaps? So moral OR political matters?
As far as I'm concerned, that's good. Those countries are too unstable to allow travellers to come in freely.
Morality and politics are obviously two distinct, but interrelated fields.
Realpolitik doesn't separate them at all. People holding and adhering to Realpolitik do have ethics, in addition to Realpolitik... I can't flapitidapity understand why you're so clearly and purposefully misrepresenting my position.
Yes, it actually does. Go read up on it, your knowledge of medicine is clearly nil.
Why don't you try that for yourself, since it is you, not I, who believes that torture is an adequate cure for a naughty child? You should go do that next time. When you get a stomach infection, head over to your doctor, and tell him you want some chemotherapy to cure it. See if he puts some sense in your head... :-d
Of course they have ethics, but the point in realpolitik, as you described, is to separate politics from ethics. Why would one separate politics from ethics except fro the sake of political evil?
No it's not to separate them at all. Rather Realpolitik doesn't deal with ethics. That's not a separation at all. Practitioners of Realpolitik hold their ethics independently of their use of Realpolitik.
Because political effectiveness can be studied independently of studying ethics? :s
So you agree with racism?
It's a proportionate punishment. Their country is messed up, so we have every right to deny them entrance into our country.
Right, if you don't have to worry about whether political actions are wrong or right, it's much easier to study politics.
Right you dumbdumb, and torture is CLEARLY in your floopywoopy big head the only way to instil a sense of honour, shame and discipline, right?! Or is it rather that using torture to instil honour, shame and discipline is by analogy (if you can even understand what that floopinwhoopin is) like using chemotherapy instead of antibiotics to cure a stomach infection?! :-}
Exactly. But it's a distinct field of study - the division is purely intellectual, the same way, say, physics is divided from chemistry.
I take racism to mean an attitude one has towards one's own citizens. So this action isn't racist at all, as it's not directed towards creating divisions between American Muslims and American non-Muslims.
And yet no ban on Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 9/11 terrorists came from...it's flat out racist
I see, so instead of considering whether an action would be wrong or right, one would consider the prospect of getting punished or rewarded from the action?
But there's hardly any terrorism inside Saudi Arabia. So, Saudis are good.
No it's not a false analogy at all. It's rather you lack of knowledge and your stupidity that makes you think it's a false analogy.
For floophoops's sake, let me explain medicine to you. If you take 5-Fluorouracil (which is a chemical used in treatment of stomach and colon cancer) it kills all living cells, including bacteria in its path. One of the reasons why you feel nauseous, sick, weak, etc. after chemotherapy is in fact that your bacterial flora from your stomach and intestines gets destroyed, and some of those bacteria are actually healthy and needed by your body. Losing them creates a severe imbalance in your body. But just as it kills the good bacteria, it will kill the bad ones - 5-FU makes no difference between which are good and which are bad.
Hmmm yes. One would consider its non-moral implications only.
No it's just pragmatic. There can't be a ban on Saudi because Saudi is too flooping powerful...
YOU don't believe it gets things done, but you're wrong. And the fact you're still clinging to your WRONG belief after I have explained to you why it is necessarily wrong, that means that you're irrational. The doctors and scientists who study this do believe that it gets things done.
So like you say you're free to be deluded that torture gets things done. Enjoy your delusion. There's no point in discussing with an irrational person.
Indeed the only cure (joking) for you is what Avicenna says:
"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned."
>:O
Are you a living being?
Quoting Evol Sonic Goo
There is no answer to the refusal to be reasonable except the ad hominem, as illustrated by Avicenna above. It's not just that you disagree with me, it's that you refuse to be reasonable, even in the face of UNDENIABLE evidence.
Do you believe in God Agustino? Do you think that if a politician does wrong (evil), and gets away with it here on earth, because he/she is the boss, the leader of the country and can do whatever he/she wants, do think he/she will be punished later by God?
Quoting Evol Sonic Goo
Good, then it works for you too.
Yes.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes. Which is why my Realpolitik ends up quite similar to morality itself, even if Realpolitik doesn't take into account ethics.
Somehow like 4 pages have gone by since I last checked, but I want to get back to this. Torture is never justified as a punishment, just as death isn't (hence, capital punishment). This doesn't mean, however, that it isn't necessary to kill someone out of self-defense, or similarly, use torture in the same way. I'm not nailed down on the torture position, though. It's more iffy to me than the death/self-defense issue.
Excusez-moi O:)
This sentence makes no sense to me. Do you mean that death IS justified as punishment?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Again, I can't understand this.
Then on what have you typed LOL? >:O
Rich bastard. >:O
I don't have much of an opinion on this. I'm not decided on the questions but probably torture should never be a punishment even for the most atrocious crimes, but it should be used if absolutely necessary like against terrorists. Death on the other hand should be a punishment for the gravest offences only.
Although, perhaps I am rich in poverty...
Quoting Agustino
What dictates your distinction here?
Maybe not relative to other people around you, but if you compare yourself to an African child, you're certainly very rich :)
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Well torture is just making someone suffer, physically and violently. In addition, torture has negative psychological effects even on the one who does the torturing - it dehumanises them, because they have to repress their feelings of pity, compassion and mercy. Torture may be deserved - but us human beings aren't the ones to decide that - "Vengence is mine, saith the LORD"
Death on the other hand can be swift, and involves no prolonged suffering. It's just sending the criminal to the other world to be judged by God. For the worst crimes - genocide, serial killings, terrorism - I'm in favour of death as the punishment.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-immigration-ban-illegal
More fodder to keep him tied up in court. :)
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Quoting Agustino
The same could be said for our slaughtering animals, even though in the vast majority of cases and situations we need not do so in order to survive or live healthy lives. Most people don't give a rat's ass about whether it is compassionate or merciful to raise animals for slaughter, yet we do so anyway. What makes Man so special that we are allowed to treat cattle like chaff but not the terrorist, for fear that torturing them might bring about the very same vices that we carry out in and on other animals?
Quoting Agustino
I don't see how duration of suffering counts for much.
"It's just judging the criminal to be judged by God."
Hrrrmmm...
Why is death necessary?
What do you mean perhaps not? Isn't the mere fact of living in a more developed country like US equivalent to being richer than the African kid? I mean you have access to good healthcare, services of all kinds, and so forth. The African kid doesn't even have access to that. He can't even see an iPhone in many cases, much less think about buying it.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Well for one, we kill the animals with a purpose, to eat them. And we don't actually aim at torturing them at all, although we can make them to live in very unnatural conditions in order to maximise our economic efficiency. What would be the purpose of torturing the terrorist?
Furthermore this compassion for animals is a very novel phenomenon, occuring simply because capitalism doesn't just kill animals for food, but rather tortures them - as you say, forcing them to live in unnatural conditions - in order to produce sufficient meat. It's capitalism that gives birth to this compassion, and therefore the compassion is artificial - merely a way for capitalism to create a market for vegetarians as well - although being vegeterian in and of itself does little to help the animals or stop what's happening.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Of course it does, it's an important consideration. As Muhammad Ali said, suffer now, and live the rest of your life like a King! >:O
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Yep
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I'm not saying it's necessary, but I think it's an adequate punishment for those cases. How is keeping them in life prison any better or worse?
There is no being tied up in court when you have all the reigns of power, including congress. That's just an illusion.
What's bog? :-O
Progress is an illusion, friend.
Also, you'd be surprised how many Africans have phones.
Quoting Agustino
Let's stretch this. Say I kill a human being with the purpose of eating him/her, but I do not torture them. What's the difference?
Quoting Agustino
This makes zero sense, >:O
Quoting Agustino
What would your answer be to the trolley problem?
Quoting Agustino
How could you rationalize killing someone if it wasn't necessary? What's the basis for what is "adequate"?
Non-technological progress is an illusion *
I'm not surprised at all, but quite a large share of them don't, and they have much bigger problems than having access to phones.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
A human being is of your own kind. Killing one of your own kind for food - unless some extreme situation occurs - is immoral, for the simple reason that he's one of you. Furthermore, there are other differences. A human being is a rational creature. Killing a rational creature is more immoral than killing a non-rational creature, just like killing an animal is more immoral than killing an ant, or a fly, or a spider or a vegetable. So those are the differences. Now you may say these differences are not significant, but you can't say that there aren't any differences.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
It actually does make sense. If pigs grew at the countryside, and they had sufficient space to live their lives, and were adequately taken care of, and then killed for their meat, would you not eat that pork? I would. My problem is when those pigs are grown in a crowded space, where they never see daylight, where they are beaten, where they are taken forcefully away from their natural habitat, and deprived of a natural life. So vegeterianism is a reaction against such practices - hence it only becomes possible when such practices become possible. What motivates such practices? Capitalism - the desire for maximising production.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
The trolley problem is artificial. I don't solve artificial scenarios. If I actually encountered that problem in real life, I'd probably not do anything, as there's nothing I can do. Someone's dying either way, why should my decision play a causal role in who gets to die? That's for God to decide.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Proportional punishment - their crimes are so grave that they effectively take themselves out of human jurisdiction, and therefore have to be sent to the divine jurisdiction.
And actually, it really depends upon who the people are. If the lone person is my wife or my child and the others are strangers that I don't know at all, then I'll save my wife/child any day over - forget 5 people - over even 50! Loyalty is a virtue.
A simple reason that falls completely flat.
Quoting Agustino
Why?
Quoting Agustino
??? >:O
Quoting Agustino
I would not eat their meat, no. Just as I wouldn't raise my pet dachshund, let them live their life, take care of them, and then kill them to eat them.
Quoting Agustino
We agree here, obviously. Most people do, on some level, I'd say.
Quoting Agustino
Vegetarianism and veganism are not exclusive reactions to capitalist commodification.
Quoting Agustino
No, not God, you. You are deciding what to do. You either do nothing, pick the 5 people, or the 1 person. My position is that it doesn't matter what is chosen so long as the chooser's intention is to do the good. This goes back to why I questioned the role duration and number have with ethics, because in my understanding it "doesn't matter" whether someone picks the one person over the other 5 if their heart is true in making the best decision.
Quoting Agustino
Poppycock. You can't appeal to divinity when you're still dealing with a human being's life.
Quoting Agustino
That sort of bias is precisely why the problem is funny to think about, because making a decision based on who it is is wrong.
Which raises the question, where do other philosophers come from? Descartes from an oven, I suppose; fresh-baked and steaming.
:-} That's just a statement, not a justification
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Because there seems to be a hirearchy of being. I don't know. Do you feel as bad if you kill an ant, as you feel if you kill a bird?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
It's a very significant point - you asked for differences, so I offered you actual differences. Now you can say they are irrelevant - but they are still differences, which, at least logically, could be relevant.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Why not?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
That's because you have feelings of affection towards your dog and it isn't a human custom (except in Korea and China!) to eat dog.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Good sir!
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I agree, but the recent fad in Western societies over vegeterianism and veganism is most certainly an outgrowth of capitalism.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I actually am not. The train is running over the 5 people if I don't do anything. So clearly I'm not deciding. Without my intervention the outcome is clear
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I don't think so - our feelings of loyalty and devotion to those closest to us are part of who we are.
So what about the politician who doesn't believe in God? Suppose the politician practises realpolitik, focusing on clear principles like gain/loss, advantage/disadvantage, reward/punishment, because the moral right/wrong, is too cloudy and vague, it would make politics far too difficult if one had to consider right and wrong. So right and wrong is excluded from political decision making, for this politician, because it would be tedious, and progress would be slow and indecisive.
Don't you think that this politician would inevitably act immorally? In a situation where an immoral act would result in gain, and the likelihood of punishment for the act was extremely low, wouldn't that person choose the immoral act? The person would not expect to be punished by any human being, nor by God, and would surely choose the immoral act because it would be highly probable to result in much gain with very low probability of loss..
This politician would still have his own system of ethics right? So he would follow his own system of ethics in deciding how realpolitik will be employed.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
He may - it depends on what ethics he adopts.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That's assuming he's willing to sacrifice his ethics in order to have that gain. Realpolitik makes no such assumption - it leaves such questions to be answered by the person. Realpolitik will merely inform him of what are the possible roads to victory. Which road or strategy he will adopt will depend on him - and his ethics will be included amongst those factors which will determine his choice. Indeed Realpolitik enables you to judge your own enemies by their own ethics - if you know someone will not do X, you can use that to your advantage
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Again it depends on his ethics. But even if it didn't, situations are never so clear. When I have to make an immoral decision it's never too clear if they will result in loss, and calculating that loss is extremely difficult. Immorality always opens you up to potentially very large losses, so one would naturally be wary of it.
>:O Floogoolwoop you Agu, now you're playing games. Reread what you wrote before and tell me how you got to what you did. Otherwise....
Quoting Agustino
I think that depends. I hate insects and their general creepiness, but I also hate killing them if I don't have to. And I ran over some bird turkey ostrich thing last Autumn with my car and that ruined my whole day. That goddamn fucking bird, for fuck's sake!
Quoting Agustino
Brah, you have to argue something, otherwise why bring up differences that I don't think matter?
Quoting Agustino
Such would be taking advantage of it. I wouldn't even think it right were I to eat a pig after it had already died.
Quoting Agustino
Sure, this is true, but it's not the only reason. Do you not understand the fundamentals of why I brought this up?
Quoting Agustino
I'd just drop this claim, honestly. Not sure what you're trying to get across besides some vague correlation.
Quoting Agustino
I believe we've talked about this topic before. Not choosing is still a choice to me, but you'd disagree with that I think.
Quoting Agustino
This is where I'd start blabbing about necessary immoralities, O:)
Let's see ...
Quoting Agustino
I got to this because it's just something that is repugnant. Metaphysically, that other human being is the same as me, and if I don't desire to be eaten, he certainly doesn't (or if he does, then there's something wrong with his mind psychologically). So eating him is immoral because it's like eating myself.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Well I never killed any animal, but I once beat my dog with a stick (just as an experiment when I was a young child lol) and I remember feeling very bad and slimy for having done that afterwards (I was about 8ish or something like that). As for insects, I generally don't kill them myself unless they are dangerous ones, like mosquitoes. But even when I do kill a mosquito though, I don't feel pangs of conscience as I would feel if I were to hit a dog with my car for example. Like there's a clear difference between killing a mosquito and even harming an animal like a dog (much less killing it). About mosquitos though, I don't like killing them, so if there's someone else in my place, like a friend, I'll task them with the dirty job lol O:)
Because you asked for differences mate...
Quoting Heister Eggcart
But it's natural for us to eat animals man :-O (excuse the naturalistic fallacy >:O )
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Yes of course.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Hmmm yes. The necessary/unnecessary distinction plays an interesting role in your morality.
I don't think it follows. As I said, human life is more valuable than animal life, just like animal life is more valuable than plant life or insect life.
I agree with you regarding the differentiation existing due to reason, but I think this is a significant difference - it's a difference of kind, not only of gradation. So even if you disagree with me, you can see how your statement:
Quoting Thorongil
Doesn't follow. It may be possible that someone is opposed to abortion (like me) and not opposed to eating meat (like me) because of the difference that exists between other animals and man.
It still doesn't matter. The ability to feel pain and suffer is the condition for determining moral worth. The ability to reason has nothing to do with determining moral worth. One can be an excellent reasoner but morally wicked, just as one can be a poor reasoner but morally virtuous.
Quoting Thorongil
I would dispute all of these three claims. One does not have moral worth by virtue of being able to suffer. For example, the Buddha doesn't suffer anymore - God doesn't suffer, etc. and yet they have infinite moral value. So moral value cannot cling on the possibility of suffering because that would be akin to saying that good clings on the possibility of evil.
This still sounds like a hokey sentiment to me.
Quoting Agustino
Just because we tend toward thinking this way doesn't mean we ought to.
Quoting Agustino
Not sure if serious, but you're wrong either way O:)
Be more clear, thinking which way? That killing a mosquito is better (but still immoral) compared to killing an animal? I think such thinking is unavoidable, and if you're honest to yourself, you'll see that this is simply the case.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
>:O Yes I'm not prepared to discuss vegetarianism. I just merely try to illustrate that it's possible to be consistent while not being a vegetarian/vegan.
Quoting Agustino
An assumption, and a dubitable one at that.
Quoting Agustino
At base, killing either would be doing the same immoral action. But it is true that you and I are more required as we live our lives to kill mosquitoes over dogs or cats or cows.
Quoting Agustino
Good, now kiss my ring.
Quoting Thorongil
Are you the guy pointing at Christ? He looks a little fruity.
It seems to me that the more fundamental condition for having moral worth is that something is a living being. Whether or not such a being feels pain or even is capable of feeling pain is much less important. Plants are still alive. Walking over and crushing a bunch of roses for fun is immoral, even if they feel no pain. Why? Because they are living beings, and my act is the equivalent of disrespecting and not valuing living beings.
Quoting Thorongil
Why not also to plants and trees?
Quoting Thorongil
Well it's in accordance with Buddha's own teaching. Nirvana is the end of dukkha. As for Jesus, remember that Jesus was both human and God at one and the same time. God qua God cannot suffer, indeed that would mean his nature is imperfect.
No but consider how we feel about killing mosquitos compared to killing animals. We feel very very differently. I think there's a reason for this. You apparently don't. You think fundamentally the two are the same. I disagree. There's higher moral worth in the one compared with the other, hence why we feel worse if we were to kill an animal, than if we were to kill a mosquito.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
>:O
:-O This is absurd. Doing this might negate their aesthetic value, but you haven't done anything morally wrong. My position appeals to how we use moral language, yours strains credulity here.
Really... I find someone who cuts trees for fun, who steps over roses, who rips out a plant's leaves one by one, all these for fun to be highly immoral. If you don't find such actions immoral fine, but I for one certainly do. I think someone who does so, doesn't only do something that I don't like - something that I don't find aesthetically pleasing - but rather they're doing something that is morally wrong.
Only if you consider that killing a microbe (or even 1 trillion microbes) is equivalent to killing a human being. To my mind, they're not equivalent at all - there's a hirearchy of being, and some beings have higher moral worth than others. Rational beings have the highest moral worth. And to steal Heister's phrase, some killing/immorality is necessary in order to live - killing those microbes isn't something you can avoid doing.
Well, I disagree. I don't see that reason somehow makes humans possess more moral worth.
It's funny how affirmative ethics rests upon violations of its very principles. It's a second-order ethics that is based upon a fundamental and unanalyzed assumption that life is, as a whole, at least not-bad.
Is killing a human being worse than killing an ant? Is running a human being over with your car worse than running a cat over? If you answer yes to any of these, you do actually believe in a hirearchy of being, as that is what is required to explain and justify why you have such feelings. If you don't have such feelings, then well, you don't. But I'd find that quite peculiar.
At base, they're the same, yes. However, my point has been that we're more often necessarily required to swat a mosquito than kill/eat another animal. Both the mosquito and the animal have the same moral worth until they come into contact with mine, or yours, or Thorongil's.
Quoting Thorongil
Roses and trees are living things, though.
I think both of you would agree with me that the world is fallen, in the Christian sense, yet if there is no ethic that concerns itself with the rocks and the stars as much as it does with the hippo and the human, then how fallen is our world, really? I find myself to be struggling with existence as much as the tree appears to as it wonders why it must bloom and shed year after year, or the galaxy that implodes only to explode into another. If the failure of the world rests only in life and not in all things, then I'm rather perplexed.
There's no shortage of that between Agustino and me....
Yes.
Quoting Agustino
No. They are both equally bad.
But isn't the point of realpolitik to allow one to make political decisions without being hindered by any such system of ethics? So if he was adhering to the principles of realpolitik he would try as much as possible to avoid whatever systems of ethics that he was already versed in, in order to more efficiently make his political decisions. Doing wrong morally would not necessarily be considered as the wrong thing to do, it would be considered as a risk for punishment, just like making the right move would be determined with respect to gain rather than what is good morally.
Quoting Agustino
So it appears like holding any ethics would be detrimental if realpolitik were pervasive.
Quoting Agustino
If one does not believe in God, then the only losses directly related to the immorality of the act would be in the form of punishment inflicted by other human beings. But if the politician has already obtained a sufficient degree of power, such a potential for loss has already been mitigated by the fact that the other human beings lack the power to punish.
That is, most people think it's wrong to kill babies even though they possess none of the qualities based on which we attribute dignity to mature humans. Extending this to the fetus isn't a logical leap, it's just a difference in how far you're willing to stretch the continuum.
I don't mind good arguments for making abortion illegal.
There is a legal precedent for the personhood of a fetus, for example consider the cases of double homicide charges for a person who has murdered a woman who is pregnant.
The issue of abortion is about choice though.
Is it a woman's right to choose whom she will procreate with?
The answer is yes and making abortion illegal when not change this.
Before abortion was legal women self induced miscarriage or sought out illegal abortion methods.
Of course women can do these things without informing anyone that they are pregnant in the first place, so there is no practical way to enforce fetal personhood by holding the women accountable.
Especially with self induced miscarriage there is always plausible denial.
The only thing accomplished by illegal abortion/fetal personhood is to prevent women from health services regarding what will remain their decision.
Furthermore those claiming to be pro-life most often are not.
They don't adopt children and care nothing for the life of the child in question.
In fact these people will readily admit claiming "pregnancy should be punishment for having sex" without a shred of concern that there could be two victims punished to suffer for several years.
I don't consider that a reasonable punishment for being irresponsible.
If it is an issue of personhood only then, as I said, there is already a legal precedent.
I said it was a matter of choice because when a fetus dies because the woman is murdered the woman had no choice in that matter and that is what make the death of the fetus wrong.
Whereas in the case that the woman chooses abortion it is not wrong, because she has that right by matter of natural fact.
I don't see how modality fits here.
But since we agree that personhood rather than rationality is the deciding factor, it's probably not worth following this course.
For instance, if you were really serious about holding that rationality would only matter if it were being manifested by the individual right then, on those grounds it should be okay to kill sleeping people, who not only are not rational, but don't feel anything either.
Attributing personhood is arbitrary since it is and will remain a vague concept. You'll have endless discussions pace every abortion thread ever.
I didn't say personhood is arbitrary, I said attributing it will be arbitrary and this is inherent due to the fact the term is vague.
Just as we develop from infancy to maturity, deciding the point where we are mature is arbitrary. At 38 I'm still maturing.
I will! I will read it and then pass it to my Mother In Law so she can read it and then stash it away in the 'day after' box. ;) I am going to bring the Bible and some Vodka!
I fell asleep to the protests at the airports, I wake up to this:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/trump-refugee-ban-nauru-resettlement-deal-with-australia-could-be-saved/news-story/9cdbe11ff03582bb782a42953c38183d
So maybe we should give both of these new administrations time to breathe and get all the information out above the noise being raised by both sides.
Quoting Agustino
Can someone explain to this guy for me please, what philosophical error he's engaging in? :-} Perhaps he should also tell us where I have stated that it is ONLY rationality that confers moral value to human beings :-d
LOL - poor Heister, he has no clue what you're on about :-O @Heister Eggcart are you a realist or an idealist? :D
See I would disagree with you here. My moral instinct tells me that this is wrong. Ask yourself if running over a cat really is just as bad as running over a small child. You'd feel terrible in both cases, but which is worse? You can even argue per your own frame of reference, that since humans are capable of greater suffering then animals, it follows that killing a human being leads to greater suffering than killing an animal and is therefore more immoral.
I'm a feminist.
I think we're on the second go round at the moment - no names, no sick laughter.
Feminazi you mean? X-)
Why are we required to swat the mosquito? We could let it live and bite us, or we could put a bit more effort to get it out of our homes without killing it. Why is killing it better than these alternatives?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Yes, agreed by and large :P
I do X-) (joking lol)
Quoting m-theory
There is no question of rights here. All this talk about rights drives me crazy. The question is what's morally correct to do for a woman in terms of procreation. And that includes her not being forced to procreate with someone who she doesn't want to procreate with, quite obviously. But it also includes not killing a defenceless human being just so she can have sex. That's sick and disgusting.
Quoting m-theory
Yes that is still immoral.
Quoting m-theory
Still immoral.
Quoting m-theory
It's the state (and by extension the community) refusing to take part in an immoral act. We speak out against it by not allowing abortions in our society. If women still want to do them, they're free to do it, but they're on their own. They don't belong in our communities if they don't want to abide by those rules.
Quoting m-theory
Tough luck, life is difficult, next time be more careful. I am for legal abortion in cases of rape, incest, and in married relationships, as well as when the woman's life is threatened by the baby.
:-} LOL! Surely that only holds true if you're risking your life in carrying them in your body and giving birth to them. Otherwise it's your fault for getting them in your body to begin with. What, you raise the dust and then complain you cannot see? >:O
un, it is when I read your comment that I realized that in times of moral testing, great music is born. I have included a few of the lyrics as both songs are long but these stood out to me at the moment..
"You may be right, I may be crazy. But it just may be a lunatic you're looking for
Turn out the light. Don't try to save me. You may be wrong for all I know. But you may be right"
-Billy Joel
"A long, long time ago, I can still remember how that music used to make me smile
And I knew if I had my chance, that I could make those people dance
And maybe they'd be happy for a while.
But February made me shiver, with every paper I'd deliver
Bad news on the doorstep, I couldn't take one more step...
Oh, and there we were all in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time left to start again
So come on, Jack be nimble, Jack be quick
Jack Flash sat on a candlestick
'Cause fire is the devil's only friend..."
-Don McLean
No, for that would entail that realpolitik is an ethics itself.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I agree, such a person would probably act in an immoral way if he has no other system of ethics - other than God - to prevent him from taking such actions. It's just the way things are.
Fault? Interesting word choice Agustino.
Responsibility would be my choice of words and damn straight that it is my body and if I am pregnant and do not WANT/ am not ABLE to care for this fetus for LIFE? Then it is MY choice to abort within the legal timeframes.
AND until YOU are able to choose the same for YOUR life, inside of YOUR body, your opinion has limited impact.
8-)
Quoting Agustino
I wouldn't know precisely. In one case a sentient being was killed and in the other a sentient being that can reason that 2+2=4 and the like was killed. I see no moral difference between the two.
Quoting Agustino
But the immorality was never in doubt. If it is immoral to indiscriminately torture or kill sentient animals then it is immoral with respect to humans, regardless of whether they suffer more or less. My dividing line is between sentience and non-sentience.
The only cases in which killing an animal or a human fetus is warranted are those of self-defense and survival. If your own life isn't being threatened and you don't have to kill an animal for food, then I see no reason to. The only excuses offered for doing so are that "we're better than them," which assumes some sort of teleology, and that eating animals tastes good, which assumes hedonism. As for the first, I think many animal species are kinder and gentler than human beings, so we lose on the "being better" claim by simple empirical observation. As for the second, virtually any kind of immoral behavior can be justified on hedonistic grounds, so it can't be the criterion for judging moral worth.
Then what is it? If you don't want them to be in there, how did they get in there? Did they magically pop in there? If that's the case, I might agree to let you have abortions >:O
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Then you can place the baby once born in an orphanage, obviously. But you can't deprive the baby of life once you have already given him life...
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
This is a non sequitur - if I was a woman I wouldn't have sex in such a way so as to get an unwanted pregnancy. Probably I wouldn't have sex at all until marriage actually to tell you the honest truth.
You don't nor will you ever have to "agree" or "let" me do anything to my body, that choice is mine and mine alone.
Quoting Agustino
I haven't given a fetus "life" in the first 20 weeks after the day of insemination.
Quoting Agustino
But Agustino, I am married and that does not change the right for me to choose to end a pregnancy within the first 20 weeks. Now it would be a respectful thing to make sure my husband agreed with my choice but I would not legally need his consent to have an abortion.
Only if your society permits you. I think in the next 50 years Roe vs Wade will be overturned.
We instinctually do, yes, but we clearly ought not to act on all our instincts, so they are a poor criterion for judging moral worth.
The question is whether it's a moral one.
Quoting Thorongil
What if I eat an animal that someone else has killed? And there are other "excuses" such that it's traditional to eat meat. And in many societies meat was one of the easiest sources of protein to procure, and so, for example, soldiers ate a ton of meat to be able to undertake the physical effort that they had to.
Sure, but this doesn't mean our instincts are irrelevant. Presumably whatever ethics one comes up with, would reconcile our instincts to reason.
Not as long as there is a breath in my body.
Go ahead, challenge me and my sisters.