Post truth
The term was selected by the Oxford Dictionary as 2016 Word of the Year.
The dictionary defines “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”
It is similar to Frankfurt's technical use of "Bullshit" in that truth and falsehood cease to be significant. The post-truth world is the result of the ascendancy of the bullshitter, who is contrasted with the liar in that while the liar knows what is true and what is false, and knowingly speaks falsehoods, the bullshitter does not know or care for truth.
But of course truth is what is still there despite what you say about it. A post-truth world must fail.
The dictionary defines “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”
It is similar to Frankfurt's technical use of "Bullshit" in that truth and falsehood cease to be significant. The post-truth world is the result of the ascendancy of the bullshitter, who is contrasted with the liar in that while the liar knows what is true and what is false, and knowingly speaks falsehoods, the bullshitter does not know or care for truth.
But of course truth is what is still there despite what you say about it. A post-truth world must fail.
Comments (1987)
They absolutely are relevant and I've shown how. Again, you just say they're not without showing how they're not. Considering they are relevant, I'm not surprised.
No, as I showed above and before, they are very relevant, particularly the ones that brought up election issues. And now you're just repeating yourself, and repeating incorrect statements.
Why? Maybe they just hated Clinton, without wanting to control Trump?
If I'm arguing that John murdered someone and Agustino is arguing that he didn't, and you respond by saying that Jane murdered someone, then your response is irrelevant to my discussion with Agustino.
If you can't see how Clinton's crimes have no bearing on whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime then you have serious reasoning issues.
Quoting Agustino
Make up your mind, Agustino. Can there be no strings attached donations or not? You keep flip-flopping.
No. But they didn't make a donation.
The "truth" you used means the to explain to the best of your memory.
What difference does that make? I can't give someone £10 without them being indebted to me, but I can give them a Fabergé egg or compromising material on an enemy without them being indebted to me?
But it's quite simple, Agustino. The law doesn't say that things of value cannot be received from foreign nationals except in cases where there's no indebtedness. It just says that things of value cannot be received from foreign nationals.
You're absurd, and your attempts to save face are comical. You were in the wrong. Accept it and move on.
Whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime in meeting with that lawyer doesn't depend on whether or not Hillary committed a similar or different crime. This is a ridiculous claim.
— Thanatos Sand
That's a terrible and inapt comparison, since John and Jane are only tied together by the similar act, Trump and Hillary are tied together by the contexts of Washington politics and, more specifically, the 2016 election. So, my examples and response are still relevant.
If you can't see how Clintons' crimes have great bearing on whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime, then you have serious reasoning (and other) issues.
Yes, you can.
Quoting Michael
So what? That's the letter of the law, but when you apply the law you have to take into account the spirit of the law as well. If the law says that if you hit someone's car from behind it is your fault, but in this particular case the person reverses his car to hit you, should it still be your fault? :s
The fact that's the best you got shows the only absurd one who needs to save face is you. And I've shown you're in the wrong, so you really should accept it and move on.
I never said it did, so you now are even more absurd and have even more face to save.
Mistake.
If you're not claiming that Hillary's crimes determine whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime then your accusations against Hillary are irrelevant to my argument with Agustino over whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime.
Man, your reading and reasoning skills have been really poor. I brought Hillary's crimes up as a relevant comparison (and it is), not as a source of exculpation. I'm not surprised you missed that.
I go by what the experts say. They're the experts. From here, "The Federal Election Campaign Act states in unambiguous terms that any contribution by a foreign national to the campaign of an American candidate for any election, state or national, is illegal. Likewise, anyone who receives, solicits, or accepts these contributions also violates the statute.".
And even if you wanted to argue that it's only a crime if there's indebtedness, the fact that the Magnitsky Act was brought up would be a strong case for arguing that the repeal of this act was the debt that must be paid in exchange for information on Clinton.
What you actually said was "And it is entirely relevant since the same people that are rightly jumping on Trump for possibly breaking the law--and wrongly prematurely screaming "collusion"--were the same ones who defended the Clintons' collusions to the hilt.".
So you think it relevant because... people are hypocrites? That has no relevance at all to my discussion with Agustino.
And you also said "it's a vulgar platitude meant to preclude relevant mention of contradiction, just as you tried to do to me above". But I fail to see how Clinton's crimes contradict my claims regarding Trump Jr. having committed a crime.
Furthermore, in response to my claim regarding an election law, your response started with "Then the Clinton Foundation was definitely breaking the law..." and preceded to list a number of supposed crimes that have nothing to do with the election law. So given that some of those crimes have nothing to do with the election law, and given that your wording was that of a conclusion derived from an election law, I was absolutely right in claiming that some of your examples were wrong. They might be crimes, but they're not crimes according to the law I was talking about.
I've told you many times in previous posts why it's relevant. You just stick your head in the sand and repeat the same already answered questions.
I never said anything about contradiction, so your poor reading on this thread shows again. At this point, you're just chanting your same erroneous statements and already-answered questions again and again like a mantra, after you've already been shown to be wrong.
So, I will no longer encourage that by reading or responding to any of your posts. Adios.
That was a direct quote from you here.
You've asserted it. But your assertion is false. It isn't relevant. The only thing that is relevant to my discussion with Agustino is whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime.
You're free to talk about Clinton and all her crimes, but that has no bearing on whether or not Trump Jr. broke any federal election laws, and so it's pointless to direct your talk at me.
Natural events cause evil, and animals cause evil. We can say those natural events are responsible, but not morally responsible, for the evil they cause. If a human causes evil through no fault of their own then I would not call that "doing evil". Whether or not, in any particular case, a person who unintentionally causes evil is at fault due to a 'sin of omission' is perhaps never really all that clear cut. The driver who nods off for a moment and kills a pedestrian is an example. Of course he or she will be punished according to the law; but there may or may not be considered to be extenuating circumstances. There is certainly such a thing as moral luck (or unluck, as the case may be).
Quoting Agustino
Well, I agree with this. It's just that it is very difficult to tease out exactly what kind and degree of knowledge transforms lack of awareness form being a case of innocence into a case of ignorance. So, society has laws concerning when one reaches the age of 'majority', meaning full adult responsibility, and yet everyone is different and develops at different rates. I don't believe there are any easy answers to such conundrums.
Quoting Agustino
It's hard to makes any sense at all of the idea of original sin except via the notion of eternal individual existence, because of that I am undecided about the question of 'original sin', so I can neither agree or disagree with you on this.
No, they don't, they cause harm, which is substantially different from causing evil, defined as: "morally reprehensible." This denotes human activity, since objects and non-human animals cannot be "morally reprehensible" and cannot subscribe to a system of morals; only humans can.
There are several contributors here who represent an attitude that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the DNC, are the root of all evil in US politics, and possibly the world . They will sometimes grudgingly acknowledge that Trump is an embarrassment and a buffoon, on account of him being impossible to defend, but such an acknowledgement is always followed by an immediate...'but the real villain is...' It's not a hard pattern to spot.
Meanwhile, today's Post-Truth news is the infamous Boy Scout speech. Notwithstanding the fact that the head of the Scouts sent a written apology to the entire membership for the egregious and self-aggrandizing stump speech that Trump gave at what was supposed to be a ceremonial occasion (including having the assembled scouts boo the previous President), Trump now claims that it was 'the greatest ever speech' given to the Scouts.
This is in line with the 'biggest ever inauguration crowd' delusion, which has lead to a completely unnecessary enquiry into fraudulent voting in the USA, purely in service of Trump's narcissism.
I haven't seen one contributor who has said this, but you are free to actually back up your outlandish claim. You have yet to do so. So, the pattern seems to be only in your head.
This is ridiculous. People have been telling lies like this for centuries, and similar lies for millennia before that. So, we don't live in a "Post-truth" world since we never lived in a "Truth" world where truth was dominant.
And it's also in line with Obama's "We/The NSA aren't monitoring your phones," and Dubya's lies that Saddam had WMD's before he sent thousands of Americans to die, and Bill Clinton's lies that he "never had sexual relations with that woman." So the inauguration lie, or even all of Trump's lies, does not indicate a shift in the zeitgeist.
A hallmark of the post truth world, as has been noted ad nauseum, is to distract attention away from importance and towards trivial bullshit. This move is realized with several means. The thread will bear witness to this, as an astute reader ought see by now.
In real life...
The American nation is on the verge of constitutional crisis. That is the root.
Obama foresaw what he left unsaid. I thank him for preserving the evidence, and history will look upon him favorably regarding that matter.
X-)
Nice follow-up!
Cheers.
In certain forms of government, the citizens vote based upon what they think/believe to be the case. It is imperative that publicly elected officials be truthful in their testimony. It is often the case that the public opinion is shaped by these official accounts. Voters need the facts to be presented in a truthful and complete enough manner that they will cast a vote based upon knowledge and not falsehood.
Common sense starts here...
Yes, and for that trivial bullshit, all one needs to do is read Creativesoul's banal and/or erroneous posts.
In real life, Creativesoul is being alarmist and hysterical. Obama had the NSA unconstitutionally monitor our phones and lied about it to the country. If you're looking for an actual constitutional crisis, look there. Thanks to Edward Snowden, an American hero for exposing Obama's lies.
That seems a rather purposeful misrepresentation of our positions here, Wayfarer, which is especially ironic considering the topic under discussion.
I find Thanatos to be the most clear-headed and honest participant in this debate. He obviously doesn't like Trump the man, and I'd imagine (based upon his very progressive positions outlined in other threads) he likes his political agenda even less. Yet he hasn't let those considerations cloud his judgement here. That's actually a good indication of the sort of integrity we should all like to see from politicians and media pundits these days.
But let's circle back for a minute. Banno presented a topic that was intended to be about a growing cultural and political phenomena. The term post-truth was first articulated by scholars many years ago (about 30, I believe, from the linked articles I've read) and had absolutely nothing to do with Trump. Incidentally, Bill Clinton was implicated in it. Now Trump has obviously brought the matter to the forefront with his ridiculousness, but it transcends his particular case.
So we can talk about the topic at hand--whether or not we've entered into a post-truth world--or we can continue to fixate on Trump and avoid addressing the actual issue. Trump of course can be used as an example of this alleged new world, but the assumption that he personally set us on this path can only be answered honestly in the negative. If linking Trump to post-truth is the approach you're going to take, then it's equally fair for others to challenge that position by pointing out the many lies of his predecessors, as well as the consequences of those lies. One of the more significant consequences has been the growing distrust of government, which played a significant role in his presidential victory over Hillary. It also played a role in Bernie Sanders' popularity.
And if we're going to compare cases of presidential dishonesty, say, blatantly lying about a relative triviality like how many people attended your inauguration, or lying about Iraq's supposed WMD's and thus launching us into a bloody policy of regime change which has cost countless lives, then let's at least be honest and admit that an egotistical and opportunistic blowhard like Trump may be even less dangerous than other, more calculated and socially polished people who've held the office previously.
Just my thoughts.
I appreciate that, Erik. And it's true: I do not like Trump, his reactionary political agenda, or continuation of the war on Syria. But we need to focus on and fight the terrible things we know he's doing, and all the establishment Dems and MSM want to focus on is what he might have been doing without solid evidence even backing that suspicion.
Someone who is already known to be working as a Russian operative(by decree) being hired by the Trump campaign results in possible collusion, and as such warrants furthering the investigation into one Paul Manafort. During Manafort's brief tenure working directly with Trump, Sessions, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, and the rest the Trump team, the Republican National platform underwent quite the remarkable change. Very few reports were produced. Even fewer people were aware of the aforementioned direct evidence that had already been gathered by the American intelligence community.
The change was the most favorable one possible to Russia and her best interests. A connection is quickly drawn between the meddling and Manafort and the platform change.
Trump wins.
Barack Hussein Obama used the powers bestowed upon the office of the presidency of the United States of America to have as many intelligence officers as legally possible to have their hands upon whatever evidence had been previously gathered.
Some voiced ill-begotten complaints. Few reports were given.
Trump is still not under investigation.
Trump fires Comey.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Quoting Thanatos Sand
This is a lot of unfounded conjecture. There has been no establishment of Russia and Trump's campaign causing the RNC platform to undergo remarkable change, which it didn't. And there certainly is no evidence showing the Russians hacked the election at all, much less in collusion with the Trump campaign.
Creative doesn't make the best arguments, if he even makes them, but he can whip up some wild stories.
Yeah, because the Hillary campaign worked with CNN to pump up Trump during the primaries, Hillary Clinton was a terrible, unlikable candidate, and she ran a terrible campaign that ignored and lost the Rust Belt.
Barrack Hussein Obama unconstitutionally monitored our phones and lied about it to us. He's not trustworthy.
Yeah, and Hillary and members of her campaign wanted Obama to fire Comey when he was investigating her.
So, are many politicians; Bill Clinton was one of the worst: just ask his wife who was furious at him for it during the campaign. It proves nothing of his colluding with the Russians to tamper with the election.
Sorry, Wayfarer, this interesting collection of partial quotes doesn't back up your ridiculous claim above at all. In fact, they just help prove how it's completely ridiculous.
And yet you commented on it when you have know idea what sorts of things can be true/false and what makes them so. Ironic...:)
Refusing to answer pertinent questions is grounds for dismissal.
I'm sure that all politicians stretch the truth and lie on occasions. But Trump is a congenital liar, of a completely different magnitude to anyone who has occupied the office of the President. He's in a league of his own.
That's funny, since you've failed to do that over and over.
LOL. First of all, you never ask pertinent questions, and secondly it doesn't say that in the forum rules at all.
That may still be the case.
If it is not, then nothing would.
Those that view the evidence and arrive at any other conclusion are the ones required to justify that conclusion, for the evidence speaks for itself, bearing witness to the contrary.
I'll gladly concede that Obama seems a far superior human being in almost every way relative to Donald Trump.
That acknowledgement doesn't change the wider point being made here, that even Obama seems to have used sly tactics on occasion to deceive the American public about the actions of our government.
If that is the case, then the truth/post truth divide ostensibly precipitated by Trump cannot withstand scrutiny simply on the basis of this idiot's eager willingness to sacrifice the truth in the service of his monstrous ego.
Perhaps this is the essence of truth/post truth issue that's being discussed here. Even here on a philosophy message forum, with relatively knowledgeable and intelligent people who devote a good deal of their time to thinking these sorts of issues through, we're not immune to this tendency towards confirmation bias and hypocrisy.
Whether we're atheists or theists, political progressives or conservatives, advocates of postmodernism or its detractors, almost all of us (if not all) actively search out support for our positions while mostly ignoring or rationalizing away (e.g. with protestations that our opponents, unlike us, are guilty of confirmation bias and letting their emotions distort objective assessments) those those that don't.
So, yet again, this apparent general human tendency we're witnessing right here renders even more support to the notion that the truth/post truth divide has been exaggerated, especially as used within the context of political discourse.
Keep them fed, housed, and otherwise occupied.
There's a lot of dishonesty and insincerity in today's world and there most likely always has been. Any other conclusion is ill-begotten.
However, it is a post truth world, because dishonesty and insincerity used to be much more widely considered unacceptable. Monetary corruption in government used to be considered unacceptable. Politicians lying used to be considered unacceptable. News media peddling known falsehoods used to be considered unacceptable. Elected officials deliberately peddling known falsehoods used to be considered unacceptable.
But I do appreciate your input, creative, and I think one thing to take away from this is that equally well-intentioned people can disagree about important matters (be they religious, political, or whatever)--and what could be more important than truth?--while both think they're engaged in a search for truth.
It's as if the illusion of truth was a superior predicament to be in compared to one where there's no attempt to conceal lies. In a Dostoevskyesque way, if we give up the notion of objective truth then all lies are permitted. It's an interesting point, and maybe it makes a lot of sense in ways I'm too dense to recognize at the moment.
Strange argument though, IMO, although I'll admit it may not be what those making it had in mind.
Those things I mentioned earlier used to be punishable by law...
Oh...
Blatantly, knowingly, and unabashedly... Proudly even... this has become acceptable...
Yeah.
That's new.
I'm honestly trying to understand the position.
I'm satisfying that on short order.
As I mentioned way back in the thread, the term post-truth should be given up for something which more accurately captures the distinction you're making.
Would you agree or disagree with that?
I haven't followed many of your contributions here but I stand corrected. But 'most likely'? Really?
I'd surmise that the average Trump supporter believes that he tells the truth on important issues (e.g. Deep State, corrupt mainstream media, etc) while finding the trivial ones either irrelevant or even humorous. That's my hunch as someone who's in intimate contact with many of them.
Not being facetious here but that sounds like a fairly sophisticated philosophical position to my feeble mind.
I, for one, most certainly do not talk about 'a search for truth', although I can understand why some others do...
Fair enough. But how does one recognize truth if not to actively seek it out? It doesn't seem to just randomly fall into your lap. Seems an acknowledgement of one's ignorance along with a concomitant desire to actually know are both necessary. Not many people, I'd imagine, even make it this far.
I think about the conditions under which my beliefs and opinions have shifted over the years, and these always involved discovering a new set of facts which challenged my guiding presuppositions.
For instance, the idea that the US champions freedom and democracy at home and abroad (a belief I held for all of my youth) was undermined by certain actions that I became aware of only much later: things like overthrowing a democratically-elected regime in Iran and propping up a dictator more amenable to our business interests in its place, our supporting the Saudi royal family and giving China most-favored nation trading status, despite the undemocratic nature of the regimes and their horrible disregard of human rights.
The common denominator in these and similar actions appeared to be the expansion of financial interests for a select few, and had absolutely nothing to do with adhering to a set of principles like truth, justice and freedom.
So I held a belief which didn't match with 'reality.' At first I tried to resolve the cognitive dissonance through rationalizing away those actions which ran contrary to our professed principles by contextualizing them. Supporting brutal dictators was in some cases the lesser of two evils.
But the ultimate step after gaining more and more information concerning US politics--both foreign and domestic--was to finally accept the hard truth: while this nation's principles may be extremely admirable, they've clearly been used quite frequently as "noble lies" to maintain the illusions of cave dwellers like myself. And often to do the dirty work of supporting the 'elites' who benefit most from the situation.
My point in this long and tedious personal digression is twofold. First, to show that (in my case at least) arriving at the truth is a difficult process that involves both emotional and factual aspects. Facts were important, but not enough at the start. My emotional attachment to a particular conception of America was very strong and would not allow me to accept the significance of certain facts right away.
The second point of bringing it up, is to challenge (yet again!) the idea that Trump's use of lies are ultimately more malicious and more consequential than those which have been used by other American politicians since this nation's inception, and more generally throughout human history. I was close to joining the military precisely because I believed we represented great things. I would never have done so absent those illusions. The simplified narrative of American moral superiority many of us have been fed is not only wrong, but it's had far-reaching (often negative) consequences for others around the globe.
This issue is very personal, and I don't buy the notion that it's fine (or even more acceptable) to deceive someone as long as they think you're telling them the truth. That's an incredibly insulting standpoint, and especially corrosive of the foundations of a democracy in which an informed electorate is an essential component. So we can hate Trump while simultaneously acknowledging the history of lies this country's politicians have engaged in.
So we're not in a post-truth age politically because we've never been in one in which politicians (or the special interests they almost always represent) were genuinely devoted to truth. I'm going to bludgeon you all with this point over and over and over again if necessary! Trump is more bold in his lying and an even more horrible human being than most, but that doesn't exonerate his political forbears in the least.
Diatribe over.
No, it didn't.
That is true.
That makes no sense at all.
No, those that view the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that Manafort is a Russian operative are the ones required to justify their conclusion.
This is merely your unfounded opinion.
No, it is not a post truth world, and everything you said to back up that claim is unfounded and untrue.
N. was wrong. If "Truths are simply lies that people believe in" then what about this assertion itself?
He clearly felt his was not just one perspective among many possible ones, but that it was much more aligned with truth than others (e.g. Platonic, Christian, socialist, etc.).
This doesn't make much sense (to me) without anchoring it in some metaphysical notion of reality which is distorted by those (supposedly) illusory perspectives.
Yes precisely. So how are we to square with this blatant self-contradiction?
Quoting Erik
What would that metaphysical notion be?
When I say metaphysical I don't mean something like an otherworldy Platonism, but rather as Heidegger understood it 'onto-theologically': as some concept or idea (typically God in past ages) which gathers together and grounds all particular phenomena at all times.
I'm not sure how to resolve the contradiction. Perhaps something akin to Wittgenstein's throwing away the ladder once one has climbed it? Or maybe rejecting his metaphysics altogether as just one more historically-conditioned manifestation of Being (Heidegger's position) which will ultimately give way to something else?
You can do that while still acknowledging his significance as (e.g.) a psychologist--of which he has interesting things to say about this topic of post-truth--and prescient critic of many aspects of modernity.
What do you have in mind, Agustino?
This hasn't come close to happening, as millions of Americans are rejecting and protesting against Trump, and he has some of the lowest opinion ratings of any president in history.
The Sanders/Progressive movement is another indicator this hasn't happened as people are rejecting corrupt, corporate politics as usual and are demanding integrity and commitment to working for Americans from their elected officials.
The Sanders/Progressive movement >:O >:O >:O
What will I do with the money? :s I want my time back.
:s Many of N. writings are quite the opposite of loving. N. often praises warriors and conquerors, and blood-thirsty men - certainly more often than he praises artists for example. I know some people have tried to disentangle his thoughts from this, but I've read his writings, and this is quite a hard job to do.
Quoting Erik
A concept or an idea is "otherworldly".
Quoting Erik
I don't understand why people think N. was great as a psychologist. To me, Kierkegaard read him perfectly, even though he had never heard of him:
What I had in mind was the occasional exuberance he expressed towards life in its entirety, even in its darker and more questionable aspects. A sort of Dionysian intoxication.
To accept--better: to embrace the fact--that the last man recurs eternally along with everything else was, if I recall correctly, one of his most difficult thoughts.
His dislike of Christianity, for instance, seems based upon his belief that it robs this world of its meaning and value by positing a 'better' world in the beyond. That's a fairly straightforward and uncontroversial position to take on his philosophy, I think.
So by lovingly I meant that emotional pull he felt to defend this world against its many slanderers.
But it's an elevated, almost superhuman perspective to adhere to. It's a bit like that of Heraclitus, who felt that to God all things are good and just, but men typically think some things just and others unjust.
What do you mean by otherwordly?
I want to make sure we have the same thing in mind before commenting.
Is such an exuberance a good thing, and if so why?
Quoting Erik
Yeah but it doesn't tell us much. In my opinion there are some things of value in this life, and there will be things of value in the afterlife too. Why must everything be of value? And furthermore, how does the afterlife being more valuable than this life rob this life of its own value? :s
Quoting Erik
What's wrong with "slandering" the world where it is unjust?
Quoting Erik
An intellectual abstraction, not life.
An ascetic does not despair if he doesn't became Caesar, because he has given up becoming Caesar. This doesn't mean he doesn't want it, only that he is not attached to the want. This renunciation of the world is paradoxically that which allows him to take it all back. But to N. the ascetic is weak - instead the strong is the madman, who loses his mind because of his failures... That madman is supposed to be the one who embraces his life, who wills the eternal recurrence of the same :s
Life for us (human beings gifted with language) is almost always mediated through historical concepts, isn't it? The Being of beings is not a particular being, but the 'between' of subject and object which frames our understanding of the world and is subject to periodic shifts.
I'd also add that I'm not a Nietzschean by any stretch. I see some serious limitations in his thinking, including some pretty vulgar celebrations of things like cruelty and violence and slavery. Of course he'd consider such opinions on the matter to be shaped by Christianity's influence (even on secular culture), with its inherent hostility towards the supposedly hard truths of life as essentially will to power. That's probably at least partly true in my case.
But such criticisms from below are insulting to great thinkers like him. Instead of showing the limitations of Nietzsche's thinking it's more likely I'm only revealing my own.
He served as my initial impetus into philosophy, though, and will forever be important in my life in that regard. And I continue to go back to TSZ and Twilight of the Idols every few years. The dude knew how to light that fire deep in someone's soul, to get them to see the hollowness of modern bourgeoisie/commercial civilization, etc.
Nice Kierkegaard quotes by the way. He may have been a superior psychologist/philosopher compared to N. To repeat, I'm not an uncritical Nietzsche admirer. I think Heidegger was a vastly superior thinker in many ways, and he's been the primary intellectual influence for me in my journey thus far. But Nietzsche somehow got it going.
Like start a new topic or something. :)
I'm not shying away from it, mind you, I just think it would be better had elsewhere.
Yes I think this is at least partly true.
I see asceticism as being an inherently aristocratic endeavor, as is genuine Christianity as exemplified by Christ. You'd think he'd show a greater appreciation for these things than he did in his writings (although a grudging respect is given to Jesus).
At times Nietzsche seems to want us to be more like beasts of prey guided by our animal appetites.
But at other times I feel he has something much different in mind than that return to raw animal instincts. His Zarathustra intimates this IMO.
Okay, so Nietzsche's "will-to-power" is as abstract as Plato's Agathon then.
Quoting Erik
I'd be careful with identifying Being as historical consciousness. Historical consciousness reveals different aspects of Being as it moves through, but it's by no means identical to it.
Yes agreed. It's starting to become unbelievable to me that some people claim that there are no such things to be found in Nietzsche. I often wonder if they're reading different texts LOL
Quoting Erik
Then I would take Christianity to have had a good influence on us.
Quoting Erik
I've never finished Being and Time, but I've read a lot of Nietzsche. I was initially impressed by both, but I'm not so impressed by either of them at the moment.
Nietzsche is targeting nihilism. His philosophy is about the separation between morality and meaning. He demands honesty about values and meaning. Rather than being dedicated to identifying what people ought to do, his philosophy is about undoing the pretence it’s morality or justice which deifies meaning.
Holding Nietzsche is taking a position that “all is good” is somewhat close, but also quite mistaken. His position would be better described as all has meaning. No matter how moral or immoral the world might be, meaning obtains. The meaning or “worth” of the world cannot be ransomed to appearing in the ways we demand or only those ways “which make sense” to us.
The nihilistic fool says: “I cannot go on. Life has too much pain to have any meaning. There needs to be a transcendent force which inputs meaning.”
A depressed Ubermensch says: “I will not go on. The meaning of my life is constant pain. I ought not go on. Death (whether it be a figurative death of an action which might have occurred or the literal death of suicide) is my meaning.”
Nietzsche’s point is existence is always a creation or affirmation. Moral or immoral, wonderful or horrific, meaning obtains. To exist is to mean, no matter what happens to you, whether you enjoy it or not, whether you live a month or a hundred years. He’s not discussing how to be moral, but rather describing how meaning is present regardless of moral status (morality, no matter how true, is just a social whim, concerned with possession and origination of finite states. Often important, but never any threat to meaning).
The distinction is is also clear in Agustino misunderstanding of asceticism and Nietzsche. If one is honest about asceticism, that one endures of because the world (i.e. you, the ascetic), then Nietzsche doesn't have a problem. It actually fits pretty with Nietzsche's thought ; the treadmill of seeking feeling pleasure often constitutes nihilism, where getting the next hit is a transcendent solution to meaningless.
It's the falsehood Agustino is telling which is the problem for Nietzsche. The ascetic doesn't succeed by renouncing the world, but rather in affirming it-- "I am the existence which denies petty desires, who does not fall into just seeking my wishes and pleasure. "
Interesting point. That is one of Kierkegaard's positions as well.
One of the best one sentence summations of B&T I've ever seen.
Thanks, man. It took me a second reading to get that...:)
I'm like 99% convinced that Nietzsche's fundamental view of reality was very similar to Schopenhauer's. If that's true, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were both atheist/mystics. Kierkegaard's overriding point was that Christianity is dead. He wasn't trying to build anything on its grave.
Sorry.. you're right, I should have noted it. My thought processes tend to be a little amorphous.
What exactly do you mean by leaning toward mysticism? Because if it is a rejection in a belief in God, Kierkegaard didn't lean towards that.
No worries. It's late in the week; it happens.
The more mystical Christians are, the less they tend to believe in a personal God. I tend to think of mystics of all types as having fundamentally similar outlooks. God is an underlying creative force... something like that.
I can think of comments Kierkegaard made that make it sound like he did believe that God is a person, but the image of Abraham in Fear and Trembling is one any mystic would understand.
As someone educated by the Jesuits, I can tell you that is not the case, and you certainly haven't shown any support for that claim. Christian mystics tend to see God in more spiritual, more Romantic ways and more through personal experience than church experience, but they do not reject a personal God or the Godhead.
This is wrong, too. Not only do mystics vary differently within the same religion, they definitely differ from mystics in other religions. Christian mystics do not reduce God to an underlying creative force, and neither do Jewish mystics either. Kabbalists definitely believe in God/Jehovah.
Maybe, but so would many non-mystic Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
But you're right.. sometimes Christian mystics do.
Then McGinn was wrong, if he actually said that. Firstly, Eckhart never stopped believing that Christ was also God, so he was definitely a person, there. And Eckhart never rejected the Summa Theologica that said that God was the essence of personhood.
It's a context... nothing more.
So, one gives a speech. Afterwards, the speaker claims that a particular person called on the phone and congratulated the speaker, saying it was the best speech ever given, or words to that affect/effect. The problem is that that particular person spoke up afterwards and outright denied ever making the call or saying what was claimed by the speaker.
That's a bit interesting, isn't it?
Person A stated that person B called person A. Person A stated that during that phone call person B stated "X". Person B denied calling person A. Person B denied stating "X".
Then, a spokesperson for person A held a press conference. During the press conference, a reporter raised concern over the aforementioned the phone call. Specifically, the reporter accused person A of lying. The spokesperson acted as if the reporter had crossed some ethical line by calling speaker A a liar.
Then the spokesperson offered an interesting apologetic saying that conversations happened, lot's of congratulations and praise was offered, it just did not happen they way that person A said it did. Presumably... therefore speaker A wasn't lying?
No. Assuming that speaker A isn't suffering from severe delusion, s/he is most certainly lying.
The phone call never happened. That was admitted by the spokesperson. The particular praise wasn't offered by person B. That was admitted. None of that happened. Now...
There is no way that the speaker believed it did. Thus, there is no way that they believed their own statements...
Either the speaker is mentally ill, or lying... possibly both.
No, he didn't, that would have made him an Arian heretic, and he would have been excommunicated and possibly worse the moment he wrote it, said it publicly, or told another Dominican that. You're just making this stuff up now.
Sorry, that was not how Eckhart saw it. Again, that would be a rejection of both the Trinity and the Summa Theologica. He did neither. If you're just going to make this stuff up, there's no point in continuing.
If he had ever said Christ was an agent, he would have been toast.
Greetings Erik!
I'll grant that the aforementioned actions took place. It doesn't follow from the fact that there have been dishonest actors influencing our government, that the US doesn't champion freedom and democracy. It follows that some leaders took actions contrary to that. Suffice it for me to say that the particular actors involved in those situations are not equivalent to the US.
This is skirting around the notion of what counts as a just war, or act thereof.
Well, it's most certainly no secret that the US government has legitimized it's own bribery. Literally. However, this is all new. Quite new in the big picture.
On the first aspect, what you're calling "arriving at the truth" is what I would call becoming aware of your own fallibility. I'm not minimizing what you're saying at all. I mean, I am personally very well aware of how unsettling it can be to suddenly realize that things are not the way we thought they were. We all have those moments, often in differing degrees of severity.
I want to echo A.J. Ayer here...
It does not follow from the fact that we've been wrong about some things that we're wrong about everything, or that we've been wrong about everything.
On my view, how one reacts to such a 'reality check' matters much more than going through one. There is no better time, nor reason, to begin a very invasive examination of one's own thought/belief system. The problem of course is that that is self-contained, and thus cannot recognize it's own flaws. I mean, no one makes a mistake on purpose. Likewise, it is impossible to believe something that you're certain is false. So, introspection requires something external to one's own thought/belief system. Another human suffices.
I would defend neither Trump, nor other actors involved in anything you've mentioned, regardless of whether or not they are elected politicians. <-------That's a subtlety that warrants careful consideration, as it underwrites the moral/ethical degradation of American government within the last fifty or so years.
It doesn't follow from the fact that some folk do not adhere to great principles that the principles aren't worthy. America is a nation founded upon principles, those principles - when implemented properly - result in much greater things than can be had without.
No argument here. I concur.
This is working from the presupposition that being in a post truth age requires a previous age when all politicians were honest actors. It's not all about politicians, a post truth era, I mean. Aside from that bit of semantics...
I would most certainly not exonerate, nor make light of any dishonest actors in recent past. They paved the way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last, but certainly not least...
Cultivating an American society that can stand as a shining example to the rest of the world requires leading by example. This country has most certainly had it's fair share of admirable leaders, and still does, although fewer and farer between in recent past. Allowing dishonest actors to dissolve one's trust in American ideals is akin to doing away with stop signs simply because some folk don't abide.
Furthermore to suggest Kierkegaard doesn't believe in a personal God is ABSOLUTE lunacy!! Kierkegaard, the man who, along with Pascal, rejected the God of the philosophers for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob! And to suggest that most Christian mystics don't believe in a personal God - oh dear!
Quoting Mongrel
>:O >:O >:O >:O Yeah right, cause Christians are New Age believers!
>:O >:O >:O
Have you actually read Nietzsche while trying to be honest to what he was saying? I can see the point you're trying to make, but it has little to do with what Nietzsche actually wrote:
“To see others suffer does one good, to make others suffer even more: this is a hard saying but an ancient, mighty, human, all-too-human principle [...] Without cruelty there is no festival.”
What about stuff like this? And there's a lot of it in Nietzsche. You agree with it? :s
Yep. He was a mystic. My goodness... two posts attacking me. :D
How was he a mystic if he rejected the God of the philosophers and rather accepted the personal God who directly and literarily spoke with Abraham? :s You're the first person I hear who claims K. to be a mystic, quite a lot of the secondary literature on him that I've read finds him to be anti-mystical if anything.
We're some ways off topic now.
Kierkegaard thought union with the divine is impossible, in that the human self always remains separate from God, and cannot merge into God... :s
Read Sickness unto Death, or Either/Or. Also you can check out this book:
Struggling with God: Kierkegaard and the Temptation of Spiritual Trial
Theosis - which is union with the Trinity - and is the goal of life according to Orthodox Christianity does not mean the annihilation of the self into God, but rather the self being deified and joining the Three Persons of the Trinity in communion, but still remaining separate.
What document is your quote referencing?
The book I recommended you.
" Invoking the biblical motif of Jacob's struggle with the Face of God (Genesis 32), Simon D. Podmore undertakes a constructive theological account of 'spiritual trial' (tentatio; known in German mystical and Lutheran tradition as Anfechtung) in relation to enduring questions of the otherness and hiddenness of God and the self, the problem of suffering and evil, the freedom of Spirit, and the anxious relationship between temptation and ordeal, fear and desire. This book traces a genealogy of spiritual trial from medieval German mystical theology, through Lutheran and Pietistic thought (Tauler; Luther; Arndt; Boehme), and reconstructs Kierkegaard's innovative yet under-examined recovery of the category (Anfægtelse: a Danish cognate for Anfechtung) within the modern context of the 'spiritless' decline of Christendom. Developing the relationship between struggle (Anfechtung) and release (Gelassenheit), Podmore proposes a Kierkegaardian theology of spiritual trial which elaborates the kenosis of the self before God in terms of Spirit's restless longing to rest transparently in God. Offering an original rehabilitation of the temptation of spiritual trial, this book strives for a renewed theological hermeneutic which speaks to the enduring human struggle to realise the unchanging love of God in the face of spiritual darkness."
:-}
What's kenosis? Anyway, we're done. Life's too short for me to spend much time talking to a sexist jerk.
Quoting Mongrel
Kenosis means self-emptying through loving activity.
Quoting Mongrel
:-} Just because I find your comments in this thread stupid and you're a woman doesn't make me a sexist, nor a jerk. You just don't know what you're talking about with regards to Kierkegaard (or Christian mysticism for that matter). Your judgement is so dominated by your 1960s atheistic/humanistic/leftist ideology that you can't even see beyond your own nose. It's pathetic. Everyone who disagrees with you is labeled a sexist.
It's easy to define Heidegger in terms of other philosophers, but harder to define N or K in terms of others.
Firstly, that has no bearing on the quality of their works. The fact Heidegger was able to integrate the works of such brilliant varied philosophers as Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Nietzsche, Eckhart, and even Kierkegaard into his work is an accomplishment in itself the other two didn't approach.
Secondly, Nietzsche wasn't a professional philosophy scholar; he was a Classical Studies master, and Kierkegaard was a Lutheran minister well-studied in Hegel, so their projects were much different than the Philosophy/Medieval Theology scholar, Heidegger.
No, it's not impossible to understand, but if you haven't understood it, then effectively you haven't read it, and thus have no justification for your judgements of it.
Another unfounded statement that shows you never read it. And you said it was impossible to understand (meaning you couldn't understand it), so you can't say anything about what it says.
The only one filled with pride is you as you are attacking a great work because it was too hard for you and you couldn't read it. So, we're done. I won't read anymore of your unfounded nonsense.
No, he earned his degree in Theology, but was never ordained.
Or we could accept that he was wrong. Just a suggestion.
We tend to talk about Big Truths at the expense of little ones. It's the little ones that come back to bite.
Truth is still there after the lie. There were a certain number of people at the meeting; as there were at the inauguration. Saying otherwise, and even believing otherwise, does not change that. Buggering the health system will result in more misery. Push the oppositional defiant North Korean government and they will push back.
The snake oil salesman is pushing a certain narrative. The Stoic says that snake oil can only succeed in the short term. Nature will eventually wreck that narrative, and so be weak-eyed unto things of little value. Trust nature.
Yes, but what you call "protest", I think of as 'faux-protest'. How much do you think the peolple who protest would really be willing to put on the line to get rid of Trump? Would they give their lives? Their wealth and status? Their comfort? Their lifestyles?
Is it the sort of thing that could even be wrong...or right?
Why should the opinion of one who is certain of something without any evidence be taken seriously?
You can mistakenly call it what you like. But they're still protesting and clearly aren't buying into his lies, so whether they're willing to put it on the line--as few protesters do--is irrelevant to their not buying into his lies. So, my point still stands.
Again, not only are these questions pointless since few protestors of anything are willing to give those things up, but we're not discussing the extent of their commitment. We were discussing whether they bought into Trump's lies or not. They clearly don't.
Yes, but the point is that what constitutes protest exists on a spectrum from genuine full-blooded commitment (to the truth,say) and attenuated commitment that is so watered-down that it could hardly be said to be commitment at all. For me, that is just what the idea of 'post-truth' captures.
Also I am not convinced that the people who "protest" against Trump are objecting so much to his lies, as they are to the whole idea of a man such as himself, perceived to be lacking in any moral integrity at all, being in such an important position. His lies are tossed off with such careless abandon and scornful indifference, it seems, that people are unlikely to even take them seriously.
Sorry, you're still wrong as even most of the protests in the 60's didn't involve people willing to give up their lives. So, protest today is not a watered down-version. And you're even more wrong since if it were, that would be an issue of "Post-effort," not "post-truth," since none of the protesters are believing Trump's lies.
What you're convinced of is irrelevant since the protestors clearly arent' buying his lies, so their protests flies in the face of a notion of a "Post-Truth" world, showing that concept is ridiculous.
People were certainly injured in protests in the sixties. And protestors, for example asylum seekers and people living under oppressive regimes, early Protestants and early Christians among countless others who have stood for ethical, religious and ideological faiths, for what they understood to be 'the truth', have been prepared to die for their causes.
Such causes always consist in "speaking truth to power". Today comfort has become more important than truth. That's what the notion of post-truth represents, for me at least. Sure, this is an interpretation that you might not find congenial to your mindset, but it's pointless arguing about it, since there is no objective fact in this matter that could be used to demonstrate the truth of one interpretation or the other. It's basic hermeneutics.
Some were. Most weren't. Some protestors are willing to die now. And back then there was a war and Jim crow laws to fight against. So, no, people aren't bowing because of Trump. And again, this is irrelevant since we're talking about whether they believe his lies, not whether they're willing to die in a protest against him. You're very slow in grasping that, or you know you're wrong so you keep pushing the same irrelevant issue.
And none of this was any different under Obama then it is now. So, you're again bringing up irrelevant issues that don't show we're in a "Post-Truth" world at all.
That's your completely biased and unsupported view that just further undermines your erroneous position. Comfort was more important than Truth to most Americans before Trump, as well. And DAPL and BLM protestors are still speaking truth to power with Trump in office. A lot of Americans lay down to Obama when he unconstitutionally monitored our phones, too. Americans just bent over and took it. They also bent over and took it when Obama refused to prosecute the Banks after O8. So, you're wrong about people speaking truth to power before Trump and you're wrong about a "Post-truth" world.
No, it's a matter of your incorrect interpretation only being congenial to your mindset with no evidence to support it. You know you have a bad argument about "Post-Truth" so you try to support it with such a fallacious interpretation.
No, there's always objective facts involved--it's not just hermeneutics--and Trump and the protestors to which you referred to are some of them. Just because objective facts show you to be wrong doesnt' mean you can erroneously try to wave away their existence.
I haven't denied that and have nowhere claimed that Trump either brought about the post-truth condition, that it was synchronous with his becoming president or that it has even reached its culmination. People just seem to me to have become more and more concerned with comfort and less and less with the truth of political ideals. As I said, this is an interpretation and cannot be rigorously demonstrated to be either right or wrong. If you think it can be demonstrated to be wrong then lay out your demonstration.
Really, your approach to discussion is appalling! Why do you suddenly feel the need to resort to bolding and an aggressive and insulting attitude? Perhaps you need to see an anger management therapist? :-}
Ignoring the explicit contradiction, it's import is that there are no truths, only beliefs. This could be believed with a sort of internal consistency, so long as one does not expose one's beliefs to reality.
Of course it can be demonstrated to be wrong and I've already done so in my previous posts. Go re-read them if you wish. You certainly haven't countered them yet.. And you haven't come close to demonstrating it's right. Sorry.
Sorry, all that anger is all yours, as well as the need for an anger management therapist, and you just proved it there with your angry personal attack. I, on the other hand, haven't made one yet. And that also shows the only bolding, aggressive and insulting attitude is yours...:)
And seeing how I made all my arguments without resorting to angry attacks, and you failed to make yours and made angry attacks, the appalling approach to discussion is also yours.
Cheers. I won't be reading any more of your hostile, irrational posts.
Yes, although I do think there is a "true for you" and a "true for me", each one just consists in what you or I, respectively, believe to be true. What is actually true might be something else altogether.
Oh man, talk about outrageous projection!
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Count up how many different posters you have given this response to; it might just reveal a tendency. :s
Sometimes when you and I disagree, one of us is wrong.
Yes, another example might be that I think it is true that Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare's works (I don't actually think that) and you might think it false. One of us must be right, and yet we don't have any way of proving which one of us is right. I do believe there can be truth in that sense, independent of what anyone thinks.
Right, I agree; and that's pretty much what I had said.
I think that what you're getting at here, given the context of 'post-truth', be best put a bit differently. Sharpened up a bit, as it were. I'm sure you'll agree with the following on it's own terms, although you may not prefer the framework...
The truth conditions of neither lie, nor statement includes the speaker's belief.
Belief does not guarantee truth. That also holds for both cases. The ground of the lie, which is also belief, may be false. Thus, the speaker says something other than what they believe. If what they believe is false, something other than what they believe is true. It is more than possible to unknowingly utter a true statement, which is precisely what happens sometimes when a lie is based upon falsehood.
But obviously belief and truth are in many cases independent. One can believe or disbelieve both truths and falsehoods.
A lie is both intentional and untrue. So a lie occurs when the statement is false and the speaker believes it to be false.
If the statement is false but the speaker believes it to be true, one would not count it as a lie; some other infelicity is involved; an unsuccessful attempt at telling a lie.
All lies, including those of the bullshitter, are deliberate misrepresentations of what the speaker thinks/believes.
Agree?
You're calling pure pragmatic folk "bullshitters"...
In that sense, I agree.
>:O
Firstly, thinks/believes is an ambiguous term of your own invention.
But even taking it as what the rest of us call belief, a speaker who tells a truth which they do not believe has only attempted to lie.
The bullshitter does not care what happened. That's the point.
Oh yes, some are great archivers, no doubt about it. But an archiver isn't remarked by originality and genius. There are some great things in Heidegger - I especially like the way he understands man's relationship to technology and how technology alters our perception/consciousness of the world - how he understands the role of anxiety for Dasein, how we see the entities in the world as equipment ready-to-hand, and also how he understands our shift where the modern scientific thinking and philosophy obscures aspects of Being.
That's all quite relevant. But at the same time let's not kid ourselves. Heidegger ain't the kind of philosopher who will make you take out your sword and follow him >:O - the way Nietzsche or Kierkegaard could. Heidegger does reveal some useful matters, but he is not, in this regard, life altering.
Quoting Banno
No it couldn't. Lies presuppose the existence of truth. "Truths are simply lies people believe in" must necessarily be a false statement. To lie means to deceive someone - but how can you deceive someone if there are no truths to deceive them about? :s
Mark remembers Bill getting out of a blue car. When asked to tell the truth about who got out of that car, there is only one acceptable criterion to judge Mark's testimony with.
You changed the criterion regarding what counts as a bullshitter...
Having read both quite a bit over the years, I think I can say with confidence that you'll find something even more radical and life-altering in Heidegger's writings than can be found in Nietzsche.
I'll concede that Heidegger lacks Nietzsche's force of personality (who doesn't?)--he's like a Kant or Hegel in that he's much more comfortable in an academic setting than guys like Nietzsche and Wittgenstein ever were, and his style (at least in the earlier stuff) seems to reflect this German academic context--but he compensates for this with his ability to uncover the historical and philosophical foundations of many things that Nietzsche only seemed to grasp in an intuitive and emotional level. In this sense they actually compliment each other rather nicely, IMO.
But both aimed at a deep and fundamental shift at the core of our being--specifically in the way we conceive of ourselves, and therefore in the way we understand and relate to the world as well. Their respective projects each represent a significant departure from dominant self-understandings today (although Heidegger will place much of the blame for our predicament on Nietzsche!), so in that sense they're both revolutionary philosophers in much the same way that Plato, Descartes, Kant, Hegel and only a few others are, at least within the Western tradition.
Nietzsche's project, as I understand it, aims at a transformation from the mediocre last man into the creative and life-affirming overman. Heidegger works in an opposite direction: moving us from our current state of calculating, willful subjectivity--a development which has reduced the world to a collection of exploitable resources at our constant disposal--and into Dasein, as a (thrown) participant in Being's historical unfolding.
For Heidegger, we're not the masters of Being projecting meaning onto a chaotic and inherently meaningless void, but rather a receptive openness which, at least at it's highest possibility, acts as the "shepherd" or guardian of Being. In a somewhat paradoxical way, this de-centering of humanity gives our lives more meaning and significance than previous "humanistic" interpretations (be they religious or secular) have.
That's obviously a brief sketch. The "early" Heidegger seems heavily indebted to Nietzsche whereas the "later" Heidegger tries to purge himself of this influence and move beyond it. That aside, I'd suggest giving Heidegger's relatively brief and accessible Letter on Humanism a read if you'd like to get an idea of how truly radical his thinking is. Hannah Arendt felt it was his best work, and I'm inclined to agree with her. I think you'll find it extremely congenial to your own outlook and concerns (as I understand them) with our modern technological consumer civilization.
Finally, I'm not going to engage anyone on his philosophy who hasn't taken the time to actually read him. Without that common frame of reference it's honestly pointless. All of the above will likely elicit nothing but insults from those not familiar with his work. That's fine with me and I've learned to ignore these petty attacks. My friend, ciceronianus, is one of the few people who actually HAS read Heidegger around here who's able to offer up some relevant philosophical and ethical criticisms of his work without revealing his own ignorance.
Hey there, creative!
Apologies for the late response. I tend to be a little flaky at times, and, to be quite honest, I just didn't feel like posting anything the last couple of days.
I did read your thoughtful response to my long-winded rant, and there's not much I actually disagree with in it.
Maybe I'm just not feeling really argumentative at the moment, but don't be surprised if I come back with a few minor clarifications sometime within the next week or so.
I do appreciate your efforts.
Sorry, Heidegger wasn't an archiver, a mere collector of information. He engaged and interpreted great thinkers, and integrated those engagements and interpretations into his own original ideas, which is a mark of his originality and genius That is what most great thinkers do, since few come up with ideas solely their own.
Anyone who truly studies philosophy knows that.
And your erroneously calling Heidegger an "archiver" shows you never read his work.
Let's not kid ourselves. Your view of Heidegger is just your own unbiased one you fail to support in any way. And great philosophers do not inspire the taking out of swords and following them. If Kierkegaard knew his readers were doing that, he'd puke.
Of course he has been for many of his readers. Again, you throw out these broad unsupported views and treat them like Truth. That's not very Nietzschean, and you clearly haven't read Heidegger.
Yeah, seriously, that was a surprisingly dumb comment of Agustino's.
What would Kant be without Descartes, Hume, and others? What would Nietzsche be without Schopenhauer, Kant, the pre-Socratics...? What would Schopenhauer be without Plato, Kant....? What would Plato be without Heraclitus, Parmenides, Socrates...? What would Descartes be without the medieval theologians...? What would they be without Aristotle...? What would Aristotle be without Plato...? I'm leaving so many influences out for each of these.
This seems an interconnected tradition in which significant thinkers engage with their predecessors (and contemporaries) in order to make some "original" contribution. I'd imagine that takes a lot of skill and a tremendous amount of effort.
Thank you, that may actually be one of the smarter things I've said, usually it's a bit dumber :)
Quoting Erik
That might be so, but it may also be a large mistake. I believe that many of those philosophers achieved greatness precisely when they could think independently from tradition.
I think the creative appropriation of sources within the tradition (or even drawing on sources outside of that tradition) can allow one to see things from a different (new) perspective.
But convince me otherwise. I like to think I'm fairly open-minded.
Not complete independence, but I can give you examples of philosophers who did not study seemingly very important philosophers. For example Wittgenstein, who never studied Aristotle or Hegel, and presumably a host of other philosophers too.
I'm also inclined to think Wittgenstein knew more ancient philosophy than he let on. I've heard this mentioned by some biographers. I think, moreover, its near impossible to be ensconced at a prestigious place like Cambridge and not become at least somewhat familiar with the basic standpoints of the major figures in Western philosophy, such as Plato and Aristotle.
But, as usual, I could be wrong.
Maybe his path was more intuitive than historical. He and Heidegger shared some surprisingly similar positions (e.g. primacy of engaged activity over detached theorizing), and likely reached these in much different ways.
But still, he wasn't entirely ignorant of the traditional "problems" and attempted solutions outlined by previous philosophical figures.
Quoting Erik
Sure, but ultimately he did break from the Frege, Russell, et al. clique especially by the time of Philosophical Investigations. His method is also quite unique.
Quoting Erik
I don't think the historical path is as important as you make it out to be. Truth must be perennial - more like a cycle than linear in form. So Schopenhauer is attempting to approximate the same truth that Plato tried to approximate, for his generation, for example.
They tried to make sense, each in his own unique way, of the trajectory of philosophy from the ancients to the (post)moderns, and the heavy influence these developments had on affairs well beyond philosophy's seemingly narrow confines.
Analytical philosophers, too, despite being less concerned with the original sources and later development of the tradition, are no less caught within a set of guiding assumptions (an understanding of Being--or the Being of beings--as Heidegger would say) that didn't just materialize one random day.
They clearly didn't create this understanding for themselves in isolation from broader social, historical, and linguistic forces.
It's an interesting discussion though.
What if philosophy doesn't have a trajectory? What if Truth is, like I said, perennial? So it's always about recovering this same Truth, and not about going anywhere?
If philosophy has a trajectory, then that's a disaster. For we shall never attain to Truth - Truth will always be the future.
As I noted above, they weren't archivists at all, and you haven't shown them to be. As I noted above, they were engagers, interpreters, and synthesizers like all philosophers.
You clearly haven't read Heidegger, and probably not Hegel. But feel free to actually back up your erroneous claim any time.
There's what seems to be an eschatological element to Heidegger, though, with a possible recovering of our essence through an awareness of its intimate link to Being. His philosophy endeavors to prepare us for that overcoming of alienation and resulting nihilism. But the cost of this is the giving up of the isolated and a-historical ego, which is somehow impervious to historical forces and desirous of eternalizing a particular understanding of things.
But what would this eternal Truth be? And how do we, as radically finite beings, ever attain an understanding of it? My guess is that whatever it is, it has a history; and one which, incidentally, may not diminish its significance in the way I'd imagine you think it would.
Except wouldn't recovery from being thrown and achieving Dasein be contingent on reconciliation with one's own time, as well as one's history and culture transcending it? That existential aspect would preclude an essentialist Truth
There's no overcoming our finitude.
I'm not nearly as familiar with the theological dimension of Heidegger's thinking as you probably are, given your previous mention of having studied under Jesuits and therefore being aware of those typically (but not always) unmentioned influences on his work.
Ah precisely, so he's trying to sell me a wine bottle, only that he's replaced the wine with water. I see.
Quoting Erik
Why would Truth have a history? Quite the contrary, Truth must be that which does not have a history, that which remains the same through history. The truth which has a history is not interesting, because it is a changing truth.
Being is historical, and therefore Truth (as unconcealment) is historical. There's no Being without Truth and no Truth without Being. (capitalizing for dramatic effect)
But please give my previous recommendation a read and get back to me on this.
I'm sincerely interested in your opinion.
Yes, I am familiar with his use of aletheia.
Quoting Erik
Yes, I would disagree with Heidegger here that Being is historical. Being obviously reveals itself through history, but that wouldn't make it historical.
Quoting Erik
Okay, I will read this and then get back to you! :) Is there a particular translation or can I just read this one:
http://pacificinstitute.org/pdf/Letter_on_%20Humanism.pdf
Perhaps it was a typo and Agustino meant to write "achiever". ;) >:O
Or you realised what I was saying...
I think we both understand one another Banno. Our differences do not help the thread along, as far as I can see...
Erik's earlier post can be used as a particular example of that that applies universally.
When reality imposes itself upon one in such a way that s/he must either change their belief about reality and/or devalue the role that reality has in determining what it makes sense to believe, the ground of one's belief system becomes paramount.
I am reminded of Russel here, particularly his talk about looking into the source of one's thought/belief in his book Why I'm Not A Christian. While not everyone's worldview is Christian-based, the importance of figuring out what one thinks/believes and why is crucial to not only understanding oneself, but understanding one's place in the world, which must include understanding others.
If one's view of others is guided by a with us or against us principle, it can be very problematic. I mean that can pave the way to an overwhelmingly powerful criterion built upon confirmation bias alone.
Hence... currently in the US, we have begun to see the notion of 'Deep State' being used in precisely this manner...
So, you're saying Truth is no longer concealed in a theoretical "Post-Truth" world. That doesn't make much sense.
This isn't happening now.
This dynamic is neither dominant now, nor is it new. In fact, it was much worse during the post-9/11 years when you were either "with us or with the terrorists." Suddenly even some "leftists' were backing the predominantly unconstitutional Patriot Act and the horrid Iraq War.
We're seeing "deep state" used because the deep state exists, has made terrible costly lies to Americans before, and are greatly involved in this pathetic "investigation" of a Russian election tampering conspiracy that has produced nil in almost a year. At first Hillary Clinton and others spread the lie that 17 agencies (as if the Coast Guard matters) believed in this conspiracy theory. But now we know it's only 3--the prime 3 of the Deep State: The CIA, FBI, and NSA who are no more trustworthy on their word than Donald Trump Jr.
That's not what I wrote, nor does it follow from what I wrote.
If you look at your passages closely, you'll see it is what you wrote, if not word for word.
Now you're saying something different. You're saying the world before the Post-Truth world, the Truth world, hid something. And after that something was revealed, we'd have the Post-Truth world.
Now that is very odd. You're saying the world before the Post-Truth world, the Truth world, was the deceptive one, and when we had more Truth and saw what was hidden, we'd have the Post-Truth world. So, you're saying there is more Truth in the Post-Truth world than in the Truth world. That doesn't make much sense now, does it?
By the way, what exactly was being concealed and what was revealed?
Anyone can look and see that for themselves.
You need to clarify what has long been hidden and is no longer concealed if you are going to make your case. You haven't done so yet.
In a post truth world where truth is unconcealedness, that which is the case but has long since been hidden is no longer hidden. The world after the unveiling would be the post truth world...
Seems to me that Heidegger comes close to drawing an equivalency between the way things are/were with the term truth, as compared/contrasted to the way one thinks/believes things are/were and arrives at Truth as a result. His knowledge of how stuff is hidden from folk seems to bear upon his conceptions. Be all that as it may...
I find little to no value in attempting to make sense of what a post truth world entails with Heiddy's notion of Truth as unconcealedness. That doesn't surprise me in the least though. I mean, it just shows that Heiddy's notion of Truth doesn't play a role in what folk are calling a 'post-truth' world.
So, to directly answer Banno's question...
All the stuff about Heidegger is irrelevant to the thread.
Clearly so.
And yet others seem to argue from the idea that all lies are equal.
[b]Our situation the last 60 years before the current situation involved an overwhelming amount of distrust in elected and/or government officials.
You seem to forget:
The Vietnam War, Watergate, Iran/Contra, Clinton's wagging his finger at America and saying "I never had sexual relations with that woman," Bush and the CIA's lies about WMDs leading to the nightmarish Iraq War, and Obama lying to us about the NSA unconstitutionally monitoring our phones.[/b]
[b]This has also been the case long before Trump.
Clearly so.[/b]
I haven't seen a single post saying all lies are equal. You need to go find one if you want to back up that dubious claim
Quoting creativesoul
Make up your mind will you? >:O
X-)
I tried to make it relevant.
But how could it ever have been that way to begin with?
Given the central role that truth plays in all thinking, how could people harbor so much distrust in government, that they believed someone like Trump was the best option? They would have to believe that they could trust him to correct what they wanted fixed.
If a very large swathe of people firmly believe that government itself is the problem, and that fixing the problem requires replacing everyone in government, then electing an 'outsider' with the power to do that seems to be necessary. That makes it easier to elect someone whose never been a politician.
Here's the thing though...
What if that kind of thinking amounts to a misdiagnosis of the problem?
Do the American people elect candidates based upon what the candidates themselves think/believe, or do they elect the candidates who have the best speech writers?
Because it is the case that politicians do not write their own speeches, then when giving a speech, they are not representing their own thought/belief in the speech act.
Yet, it is taken(quite mistakenly) to be the case that they are.
On my view, that in and of itself, amounts to speaking insincerely, and lays some of the groundwork necessary for understanding exactly what's going on...
You're not putting it into the appropriate context, since most of Trump's voters--and there were a lot of them--believed Trump would "put America First" and bring back jobs and crack down on immigration (which he did do). So, Trump's election was not an affirmation of a new "Post-Truth" world.
Nobody said it was the way you said It was to begin with because the way you said it is above is not the way it is. However, many people knew Bush lied about WMDs and still voted him in for a second term.
[b]Did you really ask how people could harbor so much trust in government when the government has lied to us about Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, the NSA unconstitutionally monitoring our phones, and the government's close ties with the banks they let screw over millions of Americans? Have you even been living in America? If Americans didn't distrust our government, they'd be naïve fools.
And voting for Trump because voters distrusted the government just shows they picked one out of two terrible options. Hillary sucked, too. It certainly doesn't point to the existence of a "Post-Truth world."[/b]
Not necessarily, many also voted for him because they couldn't stand Hillary Clinton who's stupid "deplorables" comment made them feel she wouldn't be there for them. And everyone picks a president because they hope they'll fix things. That also doesn't point to a "Post-Truth world"
Your going off the rails here. Trumpys may be a bit clueless, but none of them wanted or event thought they could have everyone replaced. And Sanders was an outsider, and the best candidate, and many smart people supported him. Outsiders can be good things--Bobby Kennedy was an outsider.
[b]Here's the thing, though...
Nobody thinks that way.[/b]
You tell us, and tell us why it is relevant to the discussion.
You confirmed everything I wrote, all the while denying it...
And the only thing I confirmed was that stupidity, and now you're throwing a tantrum like a spanked child. So, the one who needs to sit down and shut the fuck up is you...:)
Okay, I finished it! It was good, I agree with Heidegger on quite a few issues there, so thanks for sharing. Just as a warning for other people, secondary sources on this work - as on most other philosophical works I've read - are absolutely useless. I almost have no clue how people are writing their secondary sources, since I see very little resemblance to the message of the original. For example, this was crap:
https://belate.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/heidegger-letter-on-humanism/
Whoever wrote that should shut down his blog immediately.
To qualify what I agree on would be difficult since he covers quite a bit of ground. But I basically agree with the overall gist, and had similar thoughts before myself too, but coming more from the phenomenology of Max Picard. The part I found most agreement with is page 263 until page 266, especially where he goes over showing the importance of thinking about values, morality, God, etc. without taking these for granted. We take the symbols for granted, and this masks the fact that we don't actually know them at all. So a denial of the superficial symbol isn't a denial of its true meaning.
I also developed a skepticism of logic - I don't view logic and rationalism as primary, not even the law of noncontradiction - largely because of my study of Pseudo-Dionysus, the Bible, the Tao Te Ching and also Zhuangzi. So in that I agree with Heidegger that before we can think of logic and metaphysics we must think Being (although I would say we must think God). The importance of meditation on the Logos on page 265 was also quite good.
And of course, regarding the forgetfulness of Being (and all our problems emerging from there), I completely agree, that is pretty much what Max Picard says as well, except that he says it's a forgetfulness of God. So I also agree that "escaping" our age can only happen through remembrance - anamnesis - as Plato would say - of God. But I wouldn't think that is something that we can do by ourselves so to say... at least on a collective level. A single man cannot be the light of an age.
But on an individual level it's about remembering an experience (for thinking Being presupposes it), which is so difficult to remember or become aware of precisely because it is, as Heidegger says, so close to us, which actually makes it so far in the sense that we do not see it.
I also agree with his interpretation of Materialism (where every being appears as the material of labor - as a tool, or an object to do something with, instead of in-itself).
And I agree with his dismissal of metaphysics as too superficial an analysis - so to speak by the time we're going metaphysics, we have already forgotten that which metaphysics itself presupposes.
There's a few more things there, but that's a quick outline of the things that I found most productive in there.
Overall, I think that Heidegger, much like other previous thinkers, are trying to recover, or remember in their own age, the same essential "thing" (for lack of a better word), and in this philosophy is perennial and not historical, although we ourselves are historical beings, who nevertheless transcend our place in history (his discussion of transcendence was also interesting).
However, I will say that he is difficult to read which reminded me of the time I was ploughing through Being and Time - this letter clarified through some of Being and Time for me. There are thinkers who express the same ideas as Heidegger (I mentioned some of them), but I found them more accessible. Although perhaps being accessible has the fault that it doesn't make you think through the symbols, and rather has you take them for granted rather than relating them to your own experience.
You seem to interpret Heidegger in a more immanent sense than I do (for example your focus on this life, which is too Nietzschean for me, although I will say that being "spiritually rich" in my sense of the term enriches this life in much the same way as you intend to enrich it, rather than depreciating it).
It is no wonder that folk think that their votes do not matter in the big picture. It is no wonder that folk have a hard time believing much that politicians say. It is no wonder that someone like Trump could rise to power...
What good does it do to replace politicians, if it is not the politicians who are writing and implementing the laws?
There's a systemic problem in American government, and it cannot be corrected without correcting the system itself.
Have a good day. I won't be reading any more of your posts on this thread.
Yes I am actually aware he insulted you first, but this isn't the first thread where I've seen this behaviour of yours. So why are you doing it my man? Why feel the need to insult strangers just because they disagree with you or insult you? :s
I do not think that what I said insulted you Sand...
Am I wrong?
Yep, and that was you, too. You know yourself too well.
Yes, you're very wrong, you tried to insult me, but I wasn't insulted.
But if you didn't insult me, I certainly didn't insult you. So, I'm good with either...:)
And you read my post poorly, I made it clear I wasn't insulted.
And it was very sincere...:)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/93150#Post_93150
That convo is just one example. If I spend 5mins digging through your posts I'll find many many insults. Way too many. In fact, I was reading through your posts earlier on, and the number of times you gratuitously insult people is staggering.
Regarding me insulting people, I sometimes do that, though generally not serious, and it's actually not that frequent. But you insulted four different people yesterday, calling two of us racists (for no adequate reason) and then when two other members pointed to this, you deflected it and told them they can't read or are racists themselves. You must consider yourself very smart and superior.
But if you want to play this stupid game let's play it properly. You say that what I said was racist. Let's ask the moderators, because racism is a banable offence according to the forum guidelines. So if what I said was racist, then I should be banned. But if it wasn't, then you should apologise. The moderators don't like me much anyway, so how about we ask them what they think? :) And if they think like you, then I will get banned, otherwise you must apologise. How about that? Are you willing to play or will you try to get out of it when the going gets tough? :)
Whether or not you were trying to insult me is another matter altogether. It seems that Augustino and I agree on that much(that that was your intent).
Sorry, you guys have no idea what my intent was. And you were clearly trying to insult me, even Augustino admitted that. Thanks for even more support.
What the hell are you talking about?
I'm not complaining that you insulted me. Here's the thing though...
If you think/believe that I insulted you by saying something, and then you say the same thing to me...
How is the one a case of insulting but the other is not?
What the hell are you talking about?
Your'e trying to say what my intent was, and you have no idea what my intent was.
And I never said you insulted me, I said you tried to but I wasnt' insulted, and that doesn't mean I was trying to insult you.
How can you not process that?
And thanks for further confirming you cant' show anywhere where I insulted anyone...:)
"Anyway, we're done. Life's too short for me to spend much time talking to a sexist jerk.
— Mongrel
Just because I find your comments in this thread stupid and you're a woman doesn't make me a sexist, nor a jerk. You just don't know what you're talking about with regards to Kierkegaard (or Christian mysticism for that matter). Your judgement is so dominated by your 1960s atheistic/humanistic/leftist ideology that you can't even see beyond your own nose. It's pathetic. Everyone who disagrees with you is labeled a sexist."
So why are you doing it my man? Why feel the need to insult strangers just because they disagree with you or insult you?
Now you're lying Sand. You didn't say that until much later in an edit that happened long after this talk about insulting had already begun. I know what you originally said when I asked you...
I wrote:
You answered originally...
That was the original complete reply, in it's entirety...
I cannot be wrong in thinking that you were not insulted unless you were.
Since then, you've gone back and changed your answer several times. The latest answer negates and/or conflicts with the first...
And then there's this little bit you said to Augustino which is a clear admission of intent to insult...
Now, perhaps the administrators could peruse through the thread to check the timing of your multiple edits to that particular post, since you've changed it several times. Maybe not. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other...
No, you're lying now, Creat, since what you said happened never happened.
That was incoherent nonsense, and I've been very consistent. .
[b]Not only are you wrong, but your obsession with this is a bit creepy. So, I will leave you to obsess on your own and will only read posts about the thread subject.
Be well.[/b]
That's exactly how you got caught Sand...
What I said happened did happen, in exactly that way.
Sure we can...
Remember saying this?
That claim admits that you insulted but only after someone else did...
Now that that jello has been nailed to the wall...
Let's get back to the topic, shall we?
The problem, of course, is that he cannot believe all of those things that he has said, for some are mutually exclusive. That is, some of the things negate others and vice-versa. They cannot all be true. Thus, knowing that... they cannot all be believed by the same person at the same time. The only way Trump could have believed all of the different things that he said about Comey is if Trump's beliefs change on a whim. Either he is deliberately misrepresenting his own thought/belief, or he is very irrational. Calling him on it seems futile, because it's considered normal politician behaviour. As such, one go to defense will point to other politicians doing the same thing(saying whatever is politically convenient at the time).
I am leaning more and more towards the idea that the acceptance of that sort of behaviour comes as a direct result of people mistakenly thinking/believing that when a politician lies, little to nothing can be done about it, as a result of thinking that it cannot be proven. I mean, there are any number of different defenses for what seems to be clear cut cases of lying to the public. The go to defense, however, seems to rely upon a mistaken notion of what counts as the burden of proof in such matters... proving another's intent.
I remember when the discourse regarding Clinton's e-mails began using that standard.
Ultimately, it could not be proven that she intentionally destroyed evidence. There was no doubt that she destroyed certain devices. However, her claim was that she destroyed them as a matter of privacy protection, and that nothing destroyed was relevant to the investigation. Innocent until proven guilty. She and her attorneys was/were her own judge regarding which e-mails were germane. To prove that she intended to destroy evidence, the prosecution would have to have shown that there was something relevant on those devices.
Does that look bad? Surely. Was it illegal? Nope. The laws governing her actions weren't broken.
A look at the '08 financial meltdown also clearly shows that no laws were broken.
All of these things and more have helped lead to the common belief that truth doesn't matter...
It does not follow from the fact that things are a certain way, that they ought be.
This has been going on in America, and the rest of the world, for centuries.
The actual problem is Trump is a reactionary conservative whose policies threaten our environment, our national health care, and our education system. But for some reason people would rather waste time erroneously bemoaning a "post-Trump" world or obsess on unfounded conspiracy theories.
It's more like people know presidents have always lied and they know there is little, if anything, they can do about it.
Hillary straight up lied to Comey about destroying evidence. And since the e-mails showed evidence she was doing arm sales at State to the same countries she was taking money from at her Clinton Foundation--whose Qatarian donors gave Bill Clinton a 1 mil birthday present--she had every reason to want to destroy them beyond just "privacy." If one has to absolutely prove one is lying to know they are lying, we are in deep trouble.
It looks bad because she did risk security to keep her interrelated State/Clinton foundation activities hidden from others after Obama told her she needed to stop doing Foundation work at state. That looks really bad, and something doesn't have to be illegal to be bad, like when she sold uranium to Putin for 30 mil through her foundation.
That's a lie you haven't backed up at all. Many have shown how they broke laws, but the Banks were Obama's biggest donors and he let them off the hook, costing millions of Americans justice and civil suit recovery. Glenn Greenwald well details that here:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama
No, they haven't, and you haven't backed up that lie at all.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama
Again, the article I provided by Greenwald/Guardian shows very clearly that Obama could have and should have prosecuted the banks...and why he shamefully didn't
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama
Get back to me when you actually read it instead of just continuing to defend the banks
I read the article. It reeks of rhetoric.
Her endorsement of Clinton came after the primaries were all but over...
No, one doesnt', only someone who was watching poorly like yourself. Greenwald's article--and Greenwald is immensely more informed than you on the matter--shows laws were clearly broken.
Warren's interrogation didn't show they didn't break any laws. And Greenwald shows they did.
You're clearly lying and did not read the article in 25 minutes. And "reeks of rhetoric" is a nonsensical statement made by people who cannot address the main arguments. Of course you don't know those arguments, since you didn't read the article and couldn't name them if you tried. To prove I'm wrong, name those 5 main arguments. We both know you can't...:)
[b]No, they were not over, and that's no excuse for her not endorsing Sanders earlier if she actually cared about fighting the Banks corruption.
Here's that article again, the one you clearly never read. The one that shows you're completely wrong by an author who knows way more on the subject than you do:[/b]
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama
Use the article to prove what you claim...
The proof is in the article for everyone to read and see how ridiculous, and dishonest, you've been.
And since you lied, and have been ridiculously wrong, I'm done reading your posts on this.
I just read it... again. I see no proof. You claim otherwise. One of us is wrong.
Use the article and show me and everyone else how it proves what you claim it does.
Thanks for trying, Creative. I can't see how re-defining "truth" as something like "historical belief" could be a good thing.
Notice, that I for one take the world to be more truthful post-Trump than pre-Trump (that's one reason why I am pro Trump). This is because Trump does openly what he does - thus it is as Creative (Heidegger) would say unconcealed. It has finally become unconcealed. The ways of politicians have been revealed openly. It has openly been revealed that they do not care about truth, whereas before they pretended that they do, and the truth was concealed by their pretension. Now there is no question.
Agustino, you dirty little man!
You should know; you are Greek, aren't you? >:O
Janus is the God of "passages" among other things. ;)
Seriously, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus
This was actually my first username when I joined the old PF: I guess I'm returning to my roots. >:)
Yeah, it has become "unconcealed" because the populace is now so jaded and indifferent to truth that such a "truth" may be revealed without much ill-effect for the politicians. We have been efficiently "divided and conquered".
>:O I remember you had a different username, something like Threshold something. It was something starting with T at any rate.
Quoting Janus
Quoting Janus
>:)
Quoting Janus
Well after many years of giving them TV, feeding them with meaningless jobs and entertainment, and giving them that real freedom of living meaningless and pointless lives all the while making them feel as if they were truly living - shouldn't the elite get to finally relax as well? We have after all reached the fulfilment of democracy - in tyranny - for the people are finally in power! For who is Donald Trump if not as truthful as we ourselves are? He's real, he's just like we are. No pretensions. Look at what these two blonde girls say:
Oh yeah, it's wisdom, because you would be shamed if you accepted to play my game, and you know it. Right. It is indeed wisdom, the wisdom of a coward. The point being of course that you're the only cuckoo around here who found my comments racist, but you'll not admit to that. No, you are right, even if everyone else says differently.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
I don't think the part you quoted is actually insulting. You missed one of my previous posts to Mongrel which was insulting though.
Notice I say her comments, not her, are stupid.
And anyway, I actually agreed that I sometimes insult, unlike you, because you are a coward, you cannot even admit to it. That's why you're pathetic. Now go hide in your hole.
Thanks for proving me right again by throwing around childish insults like "cuckoo" and "coward"...especially since they describe you perfectly
And calling Mongrel's comments "stupid" and saying her judgement is pathetic is also insulting. The fact you don't know that means you are the last person who should be criticizing someone else's posts.
So, the only pathetic one is you. And only someone who actually has a hole, like you, would think someone else has one. So, you must really have a lovely one. So, go get some professional help with that clear anger and delusion problem of yours. I'm pulling for you....:)
I never said her judgement is pathetic. And calling someone's comments stupid isn't an insult. If you call a comment stupid it's not the same as calling the person who wrote it stupid - the latter would be an insult, the former is a criticism.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
>:O Yes man up man up! Play my game coward, or go hide under you bed. What are you waiting for - you stand to offer an apology, I stand to get banned. Let's do it. I'm not the coward here.
Yes, it was 'Thresholdsun'. I couldn't sign in with 'Janus' after an extended absence wherein I had forgotten my password. So I simply created another account. Actually I had a few different usernames because i kept losing my password; and I'm kind of impatient. :)
Havin' a bit o' fun in the sandpit? ;)
Hilarious video: ah. the Americans...you gotta love 'em!
Yes, I had another account there, long ago. When I finally returned to create Agustino, I had forgotten about that one.
Quoting Janus
Oh, I love playing with Sand >:)
Yes, it was, I especially liked the predictable moment when the bolding appears, as usual accompanied by the very plausible claim that it does not represent a raised tone at all but is rather for the practical purpose of distinguishing sandy comments from the others they are responding to. >:O
That is correct.
But the truth - and this forum proves it - is that I don't "win" people at first at all. Quite the contrary, people often start by hating or disliking me. It is only after a long time and arduous journey that I win "crowds", if it can be said I do so at all. I've always been the underdog, not only here, but in other areas of life too.
And I respect people who are willing to be the underdog, but it does take some courage to do that, and not cowardice. I do like people who refuse the price of "fitting in".
Unfortunately, being well read is nowhere near enough unless it includes reading well, and not merely reading much and being able to regurgitate some of what has been read.
There does seem to be some strange compulsive schoolyard insult syndrome going on: "You're a troll and an idiot", "No, you're the only troll and idiot", "No, you are..." and so on.
Thanks for that nugget, Banno; care to explain what you are driving at?
A few stand outs: the Ordination Crowd lie, the Illegal Voters lie, the Boy Scout Leader's Phone Call lie. But there are many to choose from.
Or - maybe it doesn't matter, because 'all politicians lie', which seems to be the narrative amongst some contributors here.
Sorry, but an opinion piece is just that--an opinion piece. It is not evidentiary support for your opinion.
And Politifact is a biased publication that is no arbiter for who has been more truthful or not. Considering George W. Bush was one of the most mendacious presidents we've ever had. Their estimation means little. And considering Goodwin plagiarized on one of her books, her judging truthfulness is laughable.
[b]The fact people--on both the Left and the Right--don't believe the media is because they have been shamefully biased in backing specific candidate, have backed every military operation for years, have purposely ignored important stories like DAPL because they were inconvenient, and have told many half-truths, manipulated truths and straight up-lies. So, criticisms of that aren't attacks on the media, they're legit criticisms of a corrupt, incompetent mainstream media.
And people pointed out Bush', Clinton's, Reagan's and Obama's lies too; they're supporters still believed them.[/b]
Nobody said it "doesn't matter," so now the lying one is you. And most, if not all, politicians lie--even those with great integrity like Bernie Sanders. Anyone who believes otherwise is just deluding themselves.
No, it was bolding to delineate my statements from my interlocutors. But keep trying to foment Augustino's sad, deluded hostility without contributing anything to the forum topic...and such an angry emolji, too.
I'm not reading Augustino's posts anymore, but feel free to actually address my arguments anytime instead of chatting about me. I wasn't aware this was the Gossip Forum.
Yup. I tried to make Heiddy's notion of truth fit, but it seems that those who most often talk about a post truth world aren't thinking along those lines...
Although, Augustino seems to be. S/he also reminds me of some who are pro-Trump simply because he is so disruptive...
I'm sure that some don't give it much thought Jeep. I suspect Augustino has more faith in the institutions to prevail on the other side in better shape than before despite Trump's lack of experience...
We could be having the best, most compassionate, and most visionary candidate--Bernie Sanders--driving the bus, but the DNC had to rig the primary against him for the inferior war-hawk candidate.
Former CNN announcer provides the "real news", as if.
Never mind how long deliberate deceit has been happening in government. Never mind who did what and when. Never mind all of that...
How important is rational thinking to being able to identify the issues.
Define the problem.
We cannot possibly expect to be able to correct the issues(whatever they may be) without first defining the problem.
Knowing what the problem is requires - amongst other things - being able to distinguish between competing reports. Reports consist of statements. Thus, the ability to know what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so is crucial to being able to identify and correct the problem(s)...
This has been a great difficulty for mankind throughout its history...and probably always will be.
I'd like to see it continue.
Let's set them all out. If there is a single thread that ties them all together, it's something worth looking at.
Agree?
1. There is never just one problem; there are always many that are never neatly tied together.
2. A single problem can never be identified or reduced into full clarity as what that problem is and what exactly constitutes and contributes to that problem can never be fully discerned or agreed on.
We definitely had that under Dubya (who a lot of centrist Democrats love for some disturbing reason), and pretty much had it under Reagan, too. The problem Is not him as a person, it is his horrific policies, some which are continuations of Obama's. Those policies:
1. A racist immigration policy that could resurface in another form
2. The stripping down of the EPA
3. The cutting of progressive policies like free heating funding for poor elderly
4. The assault on public education under Devos
5. The continuation of Obama and Hillary's shameful alliance, business partnership with Saudi Arabia
6. The continuation of Obama and Hillary's shameful war on Syria and Yemen.
It's not a matter of policies. If for instance Pence became President, then his policies would presumably be very conservative and objectionable on political grounds. The problem with Trump is that he is completely incapable of the job he's been elected to. It's a different kind of problem.
This is all irrelevant since we don't impeach presidents on popular opinions.
Of course it's a matter of policies. Those are what actually hurt people and those are what we can fight...even if Pence takes over. If you don't think those harmful policies are the problem, you're no better than a Trumpy who just doesn't like Trump personally, since you're apparently fine with those policies as long as they're done capably. Unreal.
There are two problems - yes, his policies are dreadful, particularly concerning climate policy and environment protection. But his general incompetence, inability to tell the truth and narcissism are another kind of problem altogether. I get that there are many mendacious politicians, and that W was a menace to world peace, and that Reagan was a dimwit. I know all that. But Trump is a whole other level of awful.
1. George W. Bush sent thousands of Americans to die in an Iraq War (he knew was bogus) that left millions of Iraqis dead, and he signed off on the torture of thousands more of Iraqis. That's downright inhuman and evil
2. Ronald Reagan spent 8 years destroying the many New Deal social programs from Welfare, to Medicare, to Social Security, to public education, and he started a heinous "war on drugs" that left millions of non-violent offenders in prison, and he stopped AIDS research because he considered it a Gay disease.
Sorry, Trump sucks, but he hasn't done anything like those two's horrors yet.
Yeah, me along with several billion other people.And let's hope that he doesn't.
Feel free to show what he's done that makes him malevolent any time.
This presupposes knowledge of all the problems. We do not have that. What we do have is a list of all the things that we think/believe are a problem.
I say that we start there.
If this is true then it is false. If this is false then it is true.
The liar all over again.
p1. Citizens vote for politicians based upon their public narrative and/or others' about them.
p2. Politicians do not express their own thought/belief when giving a speech.
p3. Politicians do not necessarily write legislation.
p4. Politicians do not necessarily express their own thought/belief about legislation.
p5. Politicians have the ability to accrue very large sums of money by virtue of being a politician.
p6. Some of the folk writing legislation have clear-cut financial incentive to increase revenue of very wealthy people while knowingly causing quantifiable damage/harm to average citizens.
p7. When there are conflicts of financial interest between very wealthy and average citizens, any and all government officials who wield power over all citizens must always err on the side of the overwhelming majority(average citizens).
A factual statement:Since it is the case that a politician's narrative is being crafted by someone else, we cannot ensure that that narrative does not have very wealthy campaign contributors as it's source.
That sort of thing.
Can a post-truth society last?
The OP is about truth, lies and bullshit; and the stability of a social system based on bullshit.
You just described yourself perfectly, and thanks for showing you can't show how Trump is "malevolent."
No it doesn't. It shows knowledge of previous reality. To assume there is just one problem or many neatly tied together presupposes both knowledge of all problems and shows no knowledge of previous reality.
Not only did your irrelevant quip not address my argument, it was nonsensical. We cannot have a discussion if you don't address what I wrote.
Not really, more like one person erroneously calling someone a troll because they can't counter their arguments and the accused correctly noting that behavior is itself trolling.
Since we're not in a "Post-Truth" society, that cant' be the problem
Or join me, in arguing that the very notion of a post-truth society is incoherent.
Quoting Banno
The problem is neither you, nor anybody else, has been focusing on a "post-truth" society as a hypothetical, but as a present condition. You do that with your post here:
I've been doing this for a while. Others, particularly Creative, have been insisting its both coherent and descriptive of our present condition.
I'm not impressed with your para-consistency. Where I'm from it's self-contradictory, and no amount of rhetorical drivel changes that.
A hypocritical society that lasts isn't to be preferred over an honest one that disappears.
Except Creative is erroneously describing our present condition by either directly using the term "post-truth" or by erroneously saying we live in a world others call "Post-Truth."
I've been entirely consistent. I'm not impressed by your lack of consistency or your inability to effectively make an argument or counter others'
Actually, you have every reason to believe I'm speaking sincerely since you haven' shown in any way that I haven't been doing so.
My favorite sentence of yours by far.
Dear god dude. Your inability to interface charitably with literally anyone on this forum who you, to just one tiny degree, disagree with, in one tiny possible way, is absolutely disgusting. I literally can't comprehend how this is possible, other than the possibility that you're just willingly trolling us all on purpose to prove some kind of point, in a theatrical way. The fact that you just insulted Wayfarer after he offered a word of wisdom, take it or leave it...is just too much. You don't even realize the depth of the wealth of wisdom that you just absconded; a wealth of wisdom that you, like anyone else here, could have benefited from so profoundly.
Treating others poorly makes some folk feel good about themselves.
It's true. It doesn't abscond any of us from calling out the bullshit.
Dear god, dude. You just made a bunch of personal attacks on me, and you didn't back up a single one. So, you're just sadly trolling with rage and vitriol. Since this is the second time you have done that to me, I will no longer read a single one of your posts.
And I'm the one who is actually calling out your bullshit, now.
Then you and Noble Dust must feel really (and undeservedly) good about yourselves...:)
What?
The post-truth era of Trump is just what Nietzsche predicted
Ages ago.
I should also add that I had my own rather ugly spat with Thanatos a couple weeks ago after being absent here for a bit and not getting an immediate 'feel' for his style. I was accused of being a racist and cut off from further discussion in the thread, which prompted an ugly outburst from me.
But after bouncing around the forums and seeing a bunch of his posts, I noticed that he was very knowledgeable, and could even be very gracious towards his interlocutors.
I'm only adding to this gossip because I've seen a lot of posters here calling for his ban lately, under some idea that he's a troll.
That's clearly not the case, and I hope he doesn't get banned. I think the next go around I have with him--and I'm sure we won't always be in agreement like we are here--I'll have a frame of reference and won't get too upset if he decides to end the particular conversation.
In other words I won't take it as personally as I did last time but only as a practical means of ending a pointless going around in circles.
Just my opinion if any moderators happen to look into this issue. I understand where you guys are coming from but also think the forum benefits from his presence as a professional academic (I think)--even if he occasionally comes across as rude and dismissive.
But we should get back to the topic...
What the fuck? You are ok with some random anonymous internet poster saying that "we're done here", and deciding that your conversation is over, without your own personal consent?
Saying that you should kill the family of terrorists is a pretty malevolent thing to say. And if he's being honest then it shows him to be pretty malevolent.
He reminds me a bit of Gassendi from the old PF. A somewhat cranky dude who was prone to be dismissive of others but slowly gained the respect of everyone there.
Sand is arguably a dickhead, but if folk know he is a dickhead, it's their fault if they get caught.
Get caught doing what?
He's no Gassendi.
I'm just pissed that this thread is not about me.
It's hostile personal attacks like this that make it funny Banno (and others) is talking about me. I've certainly never called anyone a dickhead, and nobody has shown one post where I initiated hostility. Interesting.
:P So what is it that you do or don't like about Sand? I'm the last person to ask these questions seriously, but this situation merits the discussion.
Then Obama is certainly malevolent, as well. Since he not only said that, but he actually drone struck and killed a 16 year old son of a terrorist. He also discussed drone striking Assange, a non-violent journalist who exposed American war crimes.
Nope, what makes it funny is that you are the one that has perpetrated these hostile personal attacks all along.
Again with the whataboutism. You asked for an example of Trump's malevolency. I provided it. What's the relevance of responding with an example of another malevolent person?
--------------
I'm not going to speak ill of the dead, but I think he's every bit as knowledgeable as Gassendi.
I enjoy a discussion that gets deep into the ideas involved. Some might recall that I enjoy a proper one-on-one debate; something wiht real depth.
I haven't seen that sort of depth in Sand's work.
I happily admit that it might be I haven't made a study of his writing; but then I've not had cause to think that worth my while.
I admire a writer who can on occasions accept a point made by another, or show growth and change, or even change their mind. Again, not seen in Sand yet. But who knows?
There are plenty of less interesting writers.
It's not 'whataboutism;" it's pointing out the preceding president, Obama, did exactly what you called Trump malevolent for. So, since I assumed you don't consider Obama malevolent, I pointed that out to counter your argument for Trump's malevolence.
But you clearly consider Obama malevolent, too. So, although I disagree with you on the "malevolence" issue, at least you're being consistent.
But that's OK, since I've yet to achieve a longest thread record on the new site.
How many posts in 69 pages?
And the magic line is most certainly making it happen.
But perhaps you had a much better understanding of his personality and philosophical positions than I did.
Not near the ten thousand of previous threads. I'll have to try harder.
Quoting StreetlightX
Damn. Forgot you have the bucket and mop.
Malevolence requires a will to evil.
Narcissistic personality disorder is beyond good and evil.
This one already is (excluding the Shoutbox, of course).
Now, to beat the shoutbox...
Actually, I am more interested in ethics than metaphysics at the moment.
>:O >:O >:O
If you show this guy a tree, he will still say it's not a tree - he'll be like "so where is the tree?! You said you'll show me a tree!!"
I don't think SX's discussions are generally very profound (take that as significant), but they are highly scholastic and technical generally, which do require a lot more effort to engage in, hence attracting just a limited number of members.
Many of the profound topics on here though do end up being discussed at quite a superficial level though :P
-
Anyway, a contribution: Having not read the 69 pages of this thread, I wonder about this line from the OP:
Quoting Banno
I wonder if this is, uh... true. That truth - understood as veracity and not, say, the Truth of Christ - has any sway in the workings and the governance of society seems to me to be a particularly modern - and thus fragile - achievement. One wonders if Genghis Khan, or Vespasian, or Emperor Huangdi needed to hew to truth in order for their worlds to 'not fail'. One imagines they - and their 'worlds' - simply had more important, or simply other, things to care about.
Basically Banno I'm more pessimistic than you. I see no necessity that a post-truth society must fail. I think it will uphold itself just fine, even if that is to the detriment to all those involved. Without the institutions, cultural pressures and societal demands that valorize truth, I think it is perfectly possible to be indifferent to truth without 'failing' as such. All the more reason to fight for those institutions and exert that pressure of course, but I'm not so convinced about the some natural course of failure in the absence or devalorization of 'truth'. It just could be that things remain awful.
Personally I've transcended the truth, and await the fact-ocalypse
Arguably all theocracies.
One is reminded of a quote from one of Dubya's unnamed associates regarding this as well, speaking to a group of journalists: "[you journalists are part of the] ... reality-based community... people who believe that decisions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.... That’s not the way the world works anymore.... We’re [i.e., the United States] an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will— we’ll act again, creating other realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
The Soviet Union is the perfect example.
That example is very current now as ex-KGB officer lead Russia is using same antics and 'active measures' extremely successfully just like the Workers Paradise used in it's day. Only now without the baggage of any ideological restraints and with far more easier access to the intended target group through the internet.
Surely one reason why we are talking about "Post truth" now, actually.
8And Cain said to Abel his brother, "Let us go out to the field," and when they were in the field Cain rose against Abel his brother and killed him. 9And the Lord said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother? And he said, "I do not know: am I my brother's keeper?" 10And He said, "What have you done? Listen! your brother's blood cries out to me from the soil. 11And so, cursed shall you be by the soil that gaped with its mouth to take your brother's blood from your hand. 12If you till the soil, it will no longer give you strength. A restless wanderer shall you be on the earth." 13 And Cain said to the Lord, "My punishment is too great to bear. 14Now that You have driven me this day from the soil I must hide from Your presence, I shall be a restless wanderer on the earth and whoever finds me will kill me." 15And the Lord said to him, "Therefore whoever kills Cain shall suffer sevenfold vengeance." And the Lord set a mark upon Cain so that whoever found him would not slay him."
Since you only don't use the bolding all the time and it only seems to appear as your assertions and insults become more strident, I don't find your claim that it is merely for "delineation" purposes compelling at all.
In fact, until you back up those erroneous claims, they're just not compelling, period.
Your longer posts are usually where the assertions and insults become more strident. Why would you need to use bolding to differentiate your comments from others' when the format of quoting and responding does the job perfectly well?
If you are genuinely blind to the poor character of your "engagements" with others on here then I can only feel for you and suggest that you try to develop a little more self-awareness. Paying some heed to the many similar responses others have made to you about this would be a good first step. Anyway, it's up to you; it's no skin off my nose either way. :)
Again you fail to back up your erroneous negative claims about me. So, at this point, you're just trolling. And the format doesnt' do the job perfectly well because the separate quotes aren't well-delineated.
No, the one who needs more self-awareness is you, since you fail again to back up your erroneous claims against me. If you are genuinely blind to the poor character that shows of you, I can only feel for you and suggest that you try to develop a little more self-awareness.
This sadly presumes a small group of people must be right because they agree. Using your poor logic, a thousand klansman must be right since they are all in agreement. Paying some heed to the fact you sadly miss this, have been trolling me, and are completely biased in the matter would be a good first step.
And even the author says this: "As president, Trump has pursued this mission with gusto. That doesn’t mean he has served Putin deliberately; I doubt he has."
So, throughout history the term "truth" has been used in a few prominent and starkly different ways. This has caused much confusion and all sorts of contentiousness regarding proper usage. The Church used it in such a way as to almost claim ownership. Blah, blah, blah...
So, as result of the centuries long contentious debate over what truth actually was, there were some folk who were fed up with the seemingly useless task, so they began setting out how to talk and think about things without using the term...
Those ways of talking became more and more common...
Post-truth.
Rubbish.
Give it years... decades come and go...
Then....
There comes a time when knowing what truth is, how it emerges onto the world stage, and it's role becomes paramount to effectively removing a societal cancer. And yet, very very few have the aforementioned knowledge...
Post truth...
And perhaps the greatest irony I've ever known...
"Some folk" doesn't even come close to constituting all folk or even most folk.
So, no Post-Truth.
Not knowing what exactly "Truth" means does not mean we're in a Post-Truth world. In fact, that means we've never lived in a "Truth" world, so we can't be living in a "Post-Truth world.
Sorry, no Post-Truth.
Sorry, not even close to a non-sequitur, and you haven't shown it was. Try Again.
Thanks for showing you couldnt' show my post was a non-sequitur
Semantics are for rookies.
Everything I've said applies to what I was reporting on, and you haven't shown otherwise.
It's not my concern that you write stuff based on stuff that I do not write.
If you do not acknowledge the depth of that issue, there's not much more I can do to help you.
Goodbye, Creative.
You want proof of that?
As result of the centuries long contentious debate over what truth actually was, there were some folk who were fed up with the seemingly useless task, so they began setting out how to talk and think about things without using the term...
Those ways of talking became more and more common...
So, the popularity of talking about things while avoiding using the term "truth" grew exponentially and along with it grew greater misunderstanding than ever. Eventually we arrive at saying things such as "Your truth", "my truth", "his truth", "her truth"...
That is to conflate belief and truth.
Give it years... decades come and go...
Then....
There comes a time when knowing what truth is, how it emerges onto the world stage, and it's role becomes paramount to effectively removing a societal cancer. And yet, very very few have the aforementioned knowledge...
And perhaps the greatest irony I've ever known...
Post-truth.
As I said before, some folk doesn't mean all folk or even most folk.
No Post-Truth.
That is a non-sequitur.
I've never claimed that a post truth world requires all folk to share the same misunderstanding. So, your talk about "all folk" and "most folk" is off target.
That's a non-sequitur.
Are you objecting to the rise of pragmatism?
Are the ends good for the overwhelming majority, and if not what needs to be done in order to correct the situation?
The problem with putting the idea of getting things done at the top of the list is that it's not good enough on it's face. Not just any thing. We must get the right sorts of things done. The things that are good for the overwhelming majority.
Of course it does, since if only some/a minority of the people are not using the term "Truth,' it's not a Post-Truth word.
So, the only non-sequitur was your response above.
What you claim about "all folk" is irrelevant since it would have to be at least "most folk", and it's not in your hypotheses, for it to be a Post-Truth world. So, my talk was on-target; your erroneous criticism of it is not.
Now that's you second non-sequitur since I said nothing about Pragmatism.
This is another huge non-sequitur. It doesn't establish a Post-Truth world at all...just like the rest of your erroneous arguments.
It doesn't exist, and you have failed mightily in your attempts to show it does.
You - on the other hand - are not granting an others' terms.
One cannot validly object to another's claims by virtue of using a different sense of a key term.
That is exactly what you've been doing.
Can you formulate a valid objection?
Someone looking for proof?
Interesting that Sand should admit that.
I was.
No, I've shown that your explanation for our world being a Post-Truth one does not show we live in a Post-world one. So, I've shown your usage is erroneous, illogical, and only semi-coherent. We can do that in debates.
I'm not required to do so.
I didn't do that; I showed how your term made no sense.
I already have in my many arguments on this current thread/discussion,.
Can you actually address those arguments for once?
Its' not interesting that I should admit that since you asked what "Are you objecting to the rise of pragmatism?" when I never said anything about Pragmatism and you never used the word.
So, it's interesting you admit to asking an irrelevant question.
Do you recognize that's not the problem here or the problem with your reasoning?
Don't answer that, I already see you're lost on this.
Sigh...
I've shown enough. Let chips and opinions fall where they may.
Sand - on the other hand - is not granting an others' terms.
One cannot validly object to another's claims by virtue of using a different sense of a key term.
That is exactly what Sand has been doing. Anyone can check the record for themselves.
Sigh
No, you've shown it's easiest to formulate an erroneous definition of a questionable term based on your erroneous reasoning.
You've shown nothing, and I've shown a lot, and the chips have already fallen my way.
....as to opinions, as you've shown, most people have bad ones.
That was quick, apparently you lied about letting the chips fall where they may. And what is actually happening is you formulated an erroneous definition of a questionable term, "Post-Truth" based on your erroneous reasoning, and I've well pointed that out many times.
That's not what I did, or what I've been doing, and anyone can check the record for themselves. I validly objected to claim by the virtue of your fallacious reasoning and poor use of non-supportive evidence.
If you fail to do either, I'll let you frolic with your delusions.
You're too much..
Shakes head, laughs, and walks away...
Along with pragmatism comes the mistaken conclusion that truth is man-made. It's much easier to go along with that when the Church and the usage of the term "truth" were virtually inseparable.
Throw out the baby with the bathwater.
That's an erroneous summary of Pragmatism and its development and it fails to address its various strains, such as the Pragmatism of William James and the Pragmatism of John Stuart Mill.
And you are still left with the significant problem undermining your very faulty argument: most people in the world did not embrace this rejection of Truth, certainly not in the Western nations. So, we are not in a Post-Truth world.
For most people, the baby is still here in various forms. Sorry.
True statements are existentially contingent upon language.
Language is man-made.
Truth is man-made.
The Guardian (and various other sites).
More evidence that Trump doesn't understand how to do his job or what he's talking about (as if more were needed.)
I've never debated that. I've just correctly said that isn't evidence of a "Post-Truth" world.
Sand refuses to talk about what someone else means by "post-truth". AND...
He has more than one method for doing so.
One cannot assess another's position and/or argument without first granting the terms. Failure to do so is to misattribute meaning to the terms.
Sand has done that.
Then I grant a fundamental tenet of pragmatism and pragmatic thought, and report upon everyday current events regarding the way so many people use the term "truth", according to that tenet.
All of that is true.
The tenet is of that school.
The argument is of that school.
Now... after all of that. Sand still doesn't even acknowledge that my notion of a "post-truth" world doesn't require meeting his criterion.
Sigh...
I'm being nice. Reeeeeeeal nice.
Renewable energy will become the dominant source of energy not because it is better for the environment, but because it will cost less than petrol & the other sources of energy it replaces. It will become a common sense decision. Utilities are trying to curtail this trend or at least take control over it but I don't think the trend towards renewal energy sources is stoppable.
Big Pharrma has already created the 'facts' of its own world of costs for medicines which it has achieved by pushing the maxim to the point of "whatever the market will bear" and beyond. Not just Epi-Pens but medications that can treat Opioid overdoses, and addiction, which are the largest source of fatalities for people under 50 in USA.
The common sense approach is to use generic drugs whenever possible, but Pharma knows how to play the system, to put issues in front of use of such lower cost substitutes to delay approval of generics drugs for as long as possible. And, you can't legally import drugs from overseas due to the FDA's fears about quality, which is BS.
Citizens in US pay crazy money for less than ideal healthcare, it's as if we accepted Pharma facts, its crazy rationale that can raise the cost of an Epi-Pen from $57.00 in 2007 to over $300 today.
In the post truth world, Big Pharma is a fire brand, it creates its own reality, which it protects by paying lobbyists. .
The US $17 trillion dollar plus economy is like an elephant, it moves along at its own pace. None of Trump's actions are responsible for the US's current cresting of economic strength, this is the remainder left over from Obama's 8 years in office. I don't expect to see much effect from Trumps actions on the economy until after 12 months, probably not for 18/24 months.
I don't doubt his policies will affect the economy, but I doubt they will be for the betterment of the majority. Trump's U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, gave room for other nations launch 27 separate negotiations to undercut U.S. exporters, and US farmers around the country are already roiling.
The post truth world will stand or fail economically, common sense will prevail.
You could always quote me. Point out which claim is false and what makes it so. Nothing else suffices as ground for your objections.
It's always been that way...
It's always been that way...
That's the pattern folks.
8-)
I mean, what sense does it make to just sit back and allow unelected citizens of any country to have a more powerful 'freedom' of speech than an average American citizen? Ahem... 'Citizens' United...
What sense does it make to allow influential access to American politics on the one hand, but deny it on the other?
What sense does it make to allow lobbyists who are paid by wealthy groups to write legislation that effect/affect those groups, particularly when it involves a conflict of interest between those groups and the average American citizen?
What sense does it make to declare the US Constitution the law which governs the government, but not enforce all of the different pre-cautions put in place to avoid people abusing the powers?
Except that there is a reality to social construction, as Searle showed.
Some facts are so because that's the way things are. Some are so because that's the way we treat them. So an Australian $5 is made of plastic. That will be the case regardless of what one says. But that is it worth $5 is down to fiat.
Brute vs. social facts, borrowing Searle's terms.
Brute facts stay the same regardless of what you say about them. Social facts, not so much.
So a bullshitter will be able to get away with far more when bullshitting about social facts than when bullshitting about brute facts. Brute facts will come back and bite his arse.
A society in which brute facts (using Searle's terminology, see my last post)) are ignored will almost inevitably fail. Brute facts are unforgiving.
A society that ignores social facts? Social facts function because we make them function. If social facts are subject to too much flux, they fail. If they are denied, they fail.
At best, denial of social facts might lead to social change.
Good quote.
I think it worth noting that for all his shenanigans, Caligula had less of an historical impact on the world than a handful of Jewish rabble writing about a friend of theirs, at around about the same time.
Not that I have any great love of the good news. It's just that there is something self-serving in Dubya's unnamed associates arrogance.
The US Constitution includes the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.", this is the basis for the legitimacy of lobbying in the US. The following from Wikipedia:
I think these rules need to be revisited, updated. I doubt the intent of the makers was to allow the time and expenses involved in Lobbying in the 21st Century. There is a sense to Lobbying when the government's bureaucracy (almost a government in itself) creates needless barriers, but I don't think people who crafted the "right of petition" envisioned the way 21st Century Lobbying has evolved.
Unfortunately I doubt that it will be revisited or updated. There are too many Lobbyists who would fight any such change.
Reminds me of what Steinbeck said about critics, that they're like eunuchs gathered around the marriage bed to watch a whole man perform the act of creation.
Could you unpack this?
It's worth visiting, though. Why the expectation of truth? Why not just expect smoke-blowing and obfuscation. Ignoring the value of these strategies would be to ignore brute facts.
Seems that would be a self-correcting problem. Society-X can't settle on whether shooting yourself in the head is dangerous or not. Society-X is now gone.
Amazing insight. And that's what the OP is supposed to be about. That is bullshit.
Where is busycuttingcrap? We have some crap to cut.
Maybe because the truth isn't understandable like how it's a Wednesday at noon?
Societies don't fail. They grow and evolve. Many features of contemporary human society are around 60,000 years old.
You have mentioned in this thread that you see Trump as a sign that the US will presently lose its influence in the world. I pointed out to you that he was elected, in part, because he was seen as an alternative to Clinton, who was expected to try to maintain the US's standing as if the Cold War is still going on.
So.. what you describe as failure of the US would be considered by many Americans to be success. By and large, the US doesn't want to be an empire. There's no percentage in it.
Critics actually watch/read/listen to acts of creation for their own acts of creation. As Wilde put it, artists look at the world and infuse it into their Art; critics look at Art and infuse it into their own.
Samuel Johnson, Kenneth Burke, Paul De Man, Roland Barthes, Leslie Fielder et al were hardly "eunuchs."
Well said. For Hillary, keeping American influence in the world meant voting for the disastrous Iraq war, toppling the Libyan government and pushing a coup in Honduras (both with disastrous) results, making the horrendous crucifying/stoning/beheading Saudi Arabia our main Arab ally and weapons trade partner, and pushing a disastrous war in Syria (even pushing a dangerous no-fly zone) which has led to growth of ISIS in the area just as it has done in Libya.
That is not positive "influence" in the world. It is corporate imperialism that would have led to millions more dead in those area and billions to trillions more paid for those killings to no profit to the average American citizen. So, Trump has been a domestic disaster and a foreign policy joke, but he hasn't cost us "positive" influence that Hillary would have brought. Again, we would all be better if the DNC didn't rig the primary against Sanders and he was our president.
LOOOOOOOL! >:O >:O
[hide] Propaganda [/hide]
Oh yeah, old grandfather commie Sanders, who doesn't know two bobs of economics, as American President would have been great!
Augustino, you are really talented at showing how you really shouldn't speak at all. "Two bobs of economics" is so exemplary of that...:)
noun
1.
a short, jerky motion:
Also bob can refer to a small mechanical part.
"a dangling or terminal object, as the weight on a pendulum or a plumb line."
His knowledge of economics is like a short, jerky motion - like a small mechanical part -
basically nonexistant and faulty.
Sorry, Aug, I'm only going to be responding to those who actually say something from now on.
Have a good one.
That's possible, but I think the main reasons were twofold:
1. Hillary was a huge, powerful member of the DNC and she and the DNC had decided it was her "turn," particularly after how furious she was at Obama running against and beating her. And they did underestimate how unlikable--and how poor a campaigner--she was.
2. The DNC and Democrats have become so conservative, corporatist, and greatly tied to the Banks and corporate donors--including fracking companies--that they didn't want a progressive like Sanders to threaten all the money they've been making and promises they've made.
SX's quote immediately stuck me as being another tune from the same macho hymnal: we real men are making history and you pansies just study and analyze what real men like us do (probably wearing horn-rimmed glasses and sitting comfortably in an ivory tower).
Okay, so I googled it. It was Steinbeck, my quote is off a little because he generously mentions the partner, and I'm not the only one to attribute it to Steinbeck-being-Hemingway!
While I'm doing my normal thing - granting another's terms - and trying to make sense of an others' worldview, I was suddenly reminded of a situation not that long ago that involved establishing some aspects of American public school curriculum that are germane to this thread. The grades levels were 9-12(high school in the States). It's relevant to the discourse because it involves some aspects of my own focus here. Namely, the curriculum was about teaching students the difference between fact and opinion. This involved using a framework that bears witness to everyday facts as they occur.
So the curriculum set the difference out in a way that struck discord within me upon reading it. I remember thinking to myself, 'Jeez. It's no wonder no one knows what to believe anymore'...
According to the curriculum facts were verifiable/falsifiable and opinions were not. Moreover, facts could be true/false and opinions cannot.
Nothing about truth and the role it plays...
Neither can take proper account of correspondence to fact/reality, the presupposition thereof, and/or the role that both play in everything ever thought/believed, spoken, and/or written.
Not only do you have no evidence this actually happened, you can't show it happened around the time of Trump's election. So, your notions of our living in a "Post-Truth" world and our living in one concurrent with Trump's presidency both fail.
They're figments of your imagination.
You really are terrible--or scared--of actually addressing my arguments.
Except you haven't shown that "if" to be true in any way. So, your concerns are unjustified.
I expect North Korea will continue to raise its theoretic, try to play Trump. Historically NK has always come out ahead in these exchanges. Such as their capture of the Pueblo. which took a year of negotiation to get the men, who were tortured, released. It also got the US to admit to having hostile intentions toward North Korea and it kept the ship as a trophy.
Sorry, Creative. You either don't know what evidence means, or you have no evidence to back up your claim. I think most will go with the latter.
By the way, that's not a federally determined thing... so it would vary state by state.
And you would have to back it up for state to state now. We both know you can't, So, when you provide evidence, I'll respond to you. If you don't, you'll just have proven you have none and I'll move on.
Here's how I'd begin talking about 'post truth'...
There are many who call the current political discourse in American politics(particularly when talking about the right wing media talking points along with the president's own words) "post-truth" as a result of the sheer quantity of demonstrably false statements of thought/belief being bandied about as though they were true. There are many many more who quite simply have little to no clue what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so(a necessary prerequisite for continuing to hold demonstrably false belief(s) despite being falsified). That's a big problem. Add to that the overwhelming propensity of media talking heads to begin with an utterly inadequate linguistic framework accompanied by the financial need to keep folk tuned in by whatever means necessary, and you'll quickly notice the inevitably self-perpetuated confusion. Sadly, I cannot help but to note that much of this arose from those with unshakable conviction in false belief who remain ignorant by sheer will alone(conflate their own thought/belief and it's source with truth) and those who've - for whatever reason - who have allowed and honored(often unknowingly, and yet other times clearly not) such religious 'theft' of discursive means by virtue of accepting that particular use of the term "truth" in order to reject other aspects of the religion/belief system, while simultaneously throwing out, and/or neglecting all other notions of truth.
The problem(hinted at directly above) is simple to identify but much more difficult to correct:Most folk simply do not know what sorts of things can be true/false and what makes them so. As a direct result of disregarding truth and the role that it plays in all thought/belief and statements thereof, many people nowadays have a very hard time knowing what to believe and why. As it pertains to politics, American or otherwise, the way a topic is framed in language - the actual words used to talk about a topic - will largely determine which aspects of the topic can be sensibly discussed by virtue of establishing the terminology being used to do so. All too often folk get mired in thought and discussion by virtue of adopting an utterly inadequate linguistic framework. Any and all frameworks which cannot take account of what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so is inherently lacking explanatory power where it matters most, especially in this political context(post-truth world). Thus, the opposing narratives both claim their own truth, as they must - assuming sincerity in speech. Yet I often find myself wondering if any one of them could explain what makes a statement true/false, and better yet which ones, if any, could identify a lie.
At any rate...
Due to what I've seen for myself regarding folk from all walks of life, it seems that a common misunderstanding of what truth is and the role it plays is shared by most... unfortunately.
The saddest part, to me at least, is that not everyone is capable of knowing better, and many of those that are perpetuate the misunderstanding of those that aren't.
There has always been a sheer quantity of demonstrably false statements of thought belief being bandied about, so this isn't a different "Post-truth"" world. And MSM is making a lot of false statements and mistruths as well.
This big problem has always been the case, too.
This describes most of media as it has been since corporations began taking over in the 70's. So, not only does this not point to a "Post-Truth" world, it would be wrong to make it applicable only to Trump's presidency.
This is a nonsensical, unfounded rant entirely free of any specificity to support it.
Another rant of pure conjecture with no specific facts to support it. Creaive sure likes to share his personal fantasies.
This rambling is just too incoherent to read. However, again, it clearly has no specific facts. Creaive really believes people should just take him at his word.
We've always had this common misunderstanding in the world. That doesnt' make this a post-Truth world.
The saddest part is people perpetuating the myth of us living in a Post-Truth world, even when its clear we're not.
I can make sense of it in but one way. If a "post-truth world" means to denote American society after the use of truth-as-belief has taken hold and is now several generations deep, then 'post-truth world' would amount to a world after such use became trendy/popular. Which is merely to say, that many more now use the term "truth" as a synonym for that which one believes to be the case(belief) than did prior to the rise of American pragmatism and postmodernism.
Of course, that is not the way that the notion is being used in the American news media.
The problem here is truth-as-belief never "took hold" in America or anywhere and was never several generations deep, so there is no different "Post-Truth" world following it.
This is more erroneous conjecture Creative throws our there with no specific facts backing it up, as if everybody is just supposed to take his delusions at his word.
The news media's notion of a "Post-Truth" world is as unfounded and in-supported as Creative's
That gave me a nice chuckle... out loud even.
:-!
The lady doth protest too loudly.
I'm sure it did. It's clear language baffles you...:)
The only lady is you, and you just protested very loudly...:)
Care to make a point about an astronomer's prognostications, Jorndoe?
Nice post jorndoe... Good to see you!
[quote=Sagan][...] unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true[/quote]
The Demon-Haunted World
Sagan got it. :)
Heya creativesoul, hope all is well on your end.
Not really, since Sagan was just making a personal prediction and many people distinguish between what feels good and what feels true. In fact, since you think his post is true, you were trying to do it yourself.
It certainly doesn't establish our present world as a "Post-Truth" one.
He got many things, he just didn't quite get our present.
Likewise.
Life in general has never been better.
Indeed. That which matters to everyone equally is left for dead... Trust and truth.
I'm not convinced that such a neat division is really very applicable. Consider the recently released telephone transcripts of a certain American executive with other world leaders. It's actually quite clear that said executive knows what 'the truth of things' is. Regarding having Mexico pay for his border wall, what he is insistent upon is not that Mexico actually pay for the wall, only that they not say that they won't. Similarly, regarding the refugee deal between Australia and the US, he is concerned, above all, with the 'optics' of such a deal. Whether the numbers are 1250 refugees (as it in fact is, and which Turnbull keeps reminding him), or 4000 (as he keeps repeating), are in a certain way irrelevant. Here's the telling line:
"I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people and I agree I can vet them, but that puts me in a bad position. It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week."
Again, it's not the truth of things that are necessarily in question, but, as it were, the presentation of that truth (which itself may be a lie!). To the extent that a 'post-truth society' means anything at all, I think it bares more on this 'second level' of 'truth-presentation' and not necessarily truth itself, as it were (which is not to say it doesn't also bear on truth). This was brought home to me quite clearly after having a few discussions with those who used the term 'fake news' unironically. If you actually talk to these people, it's quite clear that 'fake news' has nothing or very little to do with 'news that is not factual'. It simply has to do with 'news they don't like/does not represent their worldview'. 'Fake' in the phrase 'fake news' quite literally does not mean what you or I mean when we say 'fake' (i.e. unture, unfactual). It means something else entirely (thus liberals who reply that such and such news story really is true miss the point entirely).
There is a kind of disconnect between action and representation then: At the level of action, 'truth' remains as relevant as ever (kinda); at the level of representation however, truth simply has no status. One can say whatever (even if one does not act accordingly). But this has a kind of efficacy of it's own. And it's not clear that this denial of truth will force any 'world' to collapse under it's own weight, so long as this disconnect remains in place. And I also don't think this topology of truth parses out neatly along the lines of the 'social fact/brute fact' division either, which simply runs tangential to the issues over truth above, which are ultimately more 'political' than 'ontological'.
Taken separately, factions work to advance particular group interests (typically self-interest is aligned with class-interests) at the expense of anything resembling the common good. In a large and diverse nation, however, the various factions can offset and 'check' each other. So rather than being a burden they're actually a blessing.
The relevance of this, as I see it, is to show that mine, Thanatos' and others' cynicism on the matter is justified on historical grounds, and at the very inception of the USA the more astute thinkers were already taking what they felt were necessary precautions against the deception and selfishness so prevalent in politics (and elsewhere).
I wonder if there's ever been a society in which the overwhelming majority of citizens willingly set aside what they perceived to be their particular interests, gathered together all the relevant facts pertaining to public affairs, looked at things from as many perspectives as possible in the most charitable way, and actively tried to bring about policies deemed beneficial to the whole of society?
The whole idea of 'checks and balances' thing underlying the US political system is predicated upon this extremely cynical view of human beings. Politicians will generally sacrifice truth or justice or any other professed principle if they feel it serves their interests to do so.
As Madison put it, "as long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be the objects to which the latter will attach themselves."
So it bears repeating that if there's never been a "truth" world (in the political realm especially), then post-truth makes no sense either. There may one characterized b reletively more truth, or another by less truth (where we're at now, perhaps), but never one wholly concerned with truth and completely free from other, less-elevated considerations.
I'd also mention, once again, the supreme value placed on rhetoric in ancient Greece, as you all know, as a means of securing one's advantage in both public and private affairs. Sophistry and politics are practically synonymous, and have been so for thousands of years.
The problem with this differentiation is the "fake news" term was first started by the often-lie spreading MSM to try and discredit not only joke right wing sites like Breitbart, but also legitimate progressive sites like Intercept and Counterpunch. They did this because those sites brought up facts about the DNC's rigging of the primary; shady dealings in the Clinton foundation; the horrors of America's policies in Syria, Libya, and Yemen; and the holes in the Russia conspiracy theories. So, when MSM--WaPO in particular, CNN, MSNBC, and NYT--coined and tried to foment the term "fake news," they were doing exactly what you those people you complained about did. They weren't complaining about actual falsehood--except in the Breitbart, Alex Jones cases--they were complaining about the revelation of actual news they didn't like and was inconvenient to their narrative.
I think the more recent use of the term "fake news" has to do with internet news outlets. That's my perception anyway.
I'm sure they do, but I was referring to its current form Streetlight mentioned and MSM fomented.
I think your portrayal of the people who use term "fake news" is quite accurate. They have this total disregard for any claims that don't fit their ideological standpoint of what feels true to them, which most across the political spectrum do to a certain extent but it's this total dismissal and refusal to engage with what's well accepted by the majority of the society that's striking. Although I think Donald Trump is quite different from most of his followers, who acts in concern for his own ego than any ideological standpoint that he really cares about. It's not so much that he dismisses the truth of anything that doesn't fit his ideology as much as he could care less if it does if it's convenient to the game he's playing.
[quote=Trump Anatomy of a Monstrosity by Nathan Robinson]"Because of this proclivity for that oxymoronic guff he calls “truthful hyperbole,” Trump is frequently accused of being a serial liar. But this is not quite right. For one thing, it misunderstands what lies and bullshit are, and who Trump is. In On Bullshit, the philosopher Harry Frankfurt tells us that the difference between the liar and the bullshitter is that the liar is deliberately trying to tell us something he knows to be false. The bullshitter, on the other hand, simply does not care whether what he says is true or false. He will say whatever is necessary to persuade his audience. That means it will include a mixture of truth and falsehood. The bullshitter may even end up saying a lot of true things. But he doesn’t say them because they’re true, he says them because they work.
Donald Trump is a bullshitter. He is best classified as a bullshitter rather than a liar because he himself does not believe he is issuing falsehoods. He doesn’t necessarily think that he’s telling the truth either. What he does is find the words that will produce the effect required at any given time; he finds the most effective promotional tool. Some- times these things are lies. Sometimes they are not. But Trump’s intention is produce consequences rather than either to deceive or enlighten. Trump will feed you whatever bullshit it takes to get your money or your vote."[/quote]
(the book has a bunch of biographical examples to illustrate the point about Trump)
1. Either ignored the Sanders campaign or had Maddow spread the unfounded lie of his supporters throwing chairs in Nevada.
2. Ignored the DNC primary rigging story, as well as the DAPL debacle or any story inconvenient to Hillarys campaign.
3. Unquestioningly supported the war on Syria. Which has ravaged the country and emboldened and empowered ISIs
4. Religiously and excessively fixated on the still unfounded Russia conspiracy theory to the detriment of more urgent and pressing domestic and foreign issues.
1. Both pro-war, particularly pro-imperialistic coups and bombing campaigns
2. Both pro-banks and think the banks broke no laws in08
3. Both anti Medicaid-for-All which would give coverage to everyone
4. Both opposed to a living wage minimum wage
5. Both pro-fracking
6. Both didn't care abou the tragedy still DAPL because their candidates didn't
7. Both are fine with weapons deals and other shady business with the horrid Saudi Arabia regime and with their candidates profiting off it, but not the opposing sides candidate doing so.
One party is highly inadequate in curbing climate change, only committed to mild investment in renewable energy, while flirting with fracking & oil drilling on the side. But they have a platform for which grassroots movements can push forward more ambitious programs and set their political leaders' feet to the fire.
The other party is completely dedicated to shutting down the EPA, dismantling international climate agreements (even to the opposition of corporate leaders), is explicit in public statements to be denying that climate change is happening, and advocates burning as much fossil fuels as possible. The only thing grassroots movements can do is prevent the party from destroying everything.
See the difference? And I can run down the list for the comparisons for issues such imperialism, welfare state, and so on that the Democratic Party sucks on and are closer to the Republican Party than most people think, but are transparently still better on all of them.
There's such a thing as making the nuanced case there are overlapping similarities but yet there are still dramatically different political consequences that arise from each party being in power.
The Dems aren't only flirting with fracking, they're fully committed to it and even have fracking donors on the DNC board. Hillary took millions from fracking industries and advocated for fracking while Sec. of state.
And I did make a nuanced case with all my points and you just conveniently ignored. Considering Obama had 26000 bombs total dropped on Syria, Libya and Yemen last year--Yemen for the horrid Saudis, and Obama and Hillary backed disastrous coups in Honduras, Libya, and Syria
So I won't be reading any more of your delusional partisan posts
I have to agree with you here. There are many, many types of people for whom the party in power has a major effect on my life. If, for example, I'm a woman who needs an abortion, a transgendered man seeking to live an equal and normal life, an undocumented immigrant, or a peaceful Muslim who is attempting to come to the United States, which party is in power makes a tremendous difference on my life.
I acknowledge that I am a partisan Democrat,a Hillary fan, and all the rest. Nevertheless, I don't think that undercuts my first point. Hilary's America, at least the first half year, would have looked extremely different from Trump's.
Both Republicans and centrist Democrats really love candidates who love to kill foreign brown-skinned people and don't give a damn about the Poor
This phenomena may have culminated in Donald Trump, but it neither originated with, nor was it intended to be confined to him. But it very quickly and predictably moved in that direction here--with perhaps media allies like Breitbart being seen as 'fake news' accomplices.
Quite a few posters have tied their belief that we're only now in a post-truth world entirely with the person of Donald Trump--an argument which clearly implies that the political world preceding him can accurately be described as one dedicated to truth.
Now I definitely agree with your analysis if the point of the debate were to determine which party represents the lesser of two evils for the majority of Americans--or even the world more generally--but we're addressing the distinction between truth and post-truth, and whether or not a sharp break has occurred.
The contention of some (Thanatos most noticeably) is that politicians have lied throughout history, and they have done so egregiously over the past 40-50 years. If this is indeed the case then positing a post-truth political world, especially without making what would seem to be the necessary conceptual distinctions, is a deeply flawed position to take.
That's the context as I understand it. We're talking about these things as they relate to 'truth' vs 'post truth' (a stark contrast) and not with a primary focus on the more nuanced one concerning which party's ideas and actions have been, let's say, less detrimental to the average American.
And it's Thantos and I who are suggesting that this particular discussion on truth vs post-truth needs more nuance than that simple dichotomy would have us believe. I think he's shown it's an oversimplified contrast with his numerous examples of deception, outside influence (money and corporate power) and intrigue predating Trump which have adversely impacted truth in American politics.
(Y)
Yeah no argument from me here since that's the exact position I've taken from the start.
And since you haven't shown you have such a clue, you're griping about yourself.
Quoting m-theory
Quoting intrapersona
Quoting m-theory
would you agree with me that truth and fact lie parallel on the same spectrum?
Revised below
No, it's not. Otherwise what Holocaust deniers are saying when they deny the Holocaust happened would be just as true as what those saying it did happen are saying.
If that is the case, then you can't fight fact with truth, but you can fight truth with fact. I would say that this argument is much like my argument about the brain/mind. The mind rests inside the brain, holding your character, emotions etc. You can't hurt the physical brain through the mind, but you can hurt the mind through the physical brain.
No, it is not the case, and there are no facts without truth. Sorry, but the Holocaust happened. That is the Truth, and those denying it are making untruthful statements.
I like the way this dude puts it
However, wouldn't you agree that's irrelevant since that person in china's experience does not determine the truth of the Holocaust. If that were true, someone in China not knowing you exist would make you not exist.
Fact does not change your truth isn't Truth and isn't always true. So what you think is rarely relevant to whether things are true or not.
What you're calling "truths" aren't "truths." They're opinions.
Not always.
Is that the truth? Or is that fact?
How you define something is in the eye of the definer, even words, some words have many definitions. Some truths are can be seen different facts
So, why are you here? To continue a discussion or just to argue?
Not if it's a relativity. That makes discernment irrelevant.
I'm not avoiding your question. I don't know what you mean by relationship or misunderstanding. What do you mean by those?
Quoting John Harris
Thank you both for your civility.
Why thank someone who's been incredibly uncivil on this forum in the one moment in which they happen to be civil, because their ego is being stroked? It's like saying to the whipping-post boy "Thanks for taking a quick break and giving me that sip of water!"
Positive reinforcement?
True. Thanks for your wisdom. But, as I mentioned, you're thanking him in the one rare moment in which he's being positive. I doubt your positive reinforcement here will actually have much effect. Psychologically, he's already made the decision to be positive, here, which is outside his general personality, in which he is generally extremely negative. So, props to you for staying positive here, but realistically, your positivity isn't going to change the personality of one "Thanatos Sand/John Harris".
So, will we see this positive approach play out with Thanatos/John? I certainly hope so. But what exactly can we do as philosophy forum posters? We're not psychologists. Also, we can't teach folks like Thanatos/John the simple basics of how to present arguments; how to respond simply to other's arguments; how to reason logically; how to address some of the more hairy philosophical problems.
I don't read the entire forum so I didn't know what I know now.
Aw hell, I'll let it stand. We could pretend it's a brand new day.
In the face of recalcitrance, there is only one course of action and every netizen knows what it is. It's been my policy -- just accidently broken -- for I think about two weeks now.
We don't even have to pretend; we have Sting:
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I often think of myself as recalcitrant, but Thanatos/John has ascribed an entirely new meaning to the word. He's kind of broken the word itself. Props...?
I thought I was going to really hate that when the harmonica entered, but there's something pleasantly middle-aged about this. I could still do without the harmonica.
What would you do if you found out that was Stevie Wonder? #askingforafriend
On the other not-this-topic, there's always SophistiCat's filter. (I miss the old days of newsreaders and killfiles.)
:-O I can't really tell what the context is here. It seems anti-Stevie though? (Be advised, I don't have a strong stake here; I'm a dirty fucking millennial).
Wait, seriously, you haven't seen High Fidelity?
I was home-schooled :’( :’( :’(
Forever uncool.
Just go watch it and let's stop padding Banno's reply count.
But I'd rather re-watch Twin Peaks so I can catch up on all the suggestive nonsense. Besides, Banno is long past receiving notifications on this thread. We can wax pointless to the mod's content!
We can check the usage of any term, including "truth", by virtue of taking the proposed definition and replacing each and every use of the term with the definition, and then carefully assessing what's left. If we're left with meaningless claims, self-contradiction, or the need to have/use more than one definition in order to make sense of what's being claimed, then we've arrived at more than enough reason to reject that particular definition.
Seeing how the term "truth" is pivotal to any and all notions of what counts as post-truth, we can clearly see that establishing what - exactly - counts as truth is pivotal to the discussion of post-truth.
I suspect that that is at least close to what Banno is pointing at when calling the notion of a post-truth world incoherent.
You ought to be able to see from short list above that NONE of the techniques of control are "objective", and yet the established power has promoted these things AS IF THEY ARE objective. Ask any churchman about the objectivity of morality!
PT is yet another means by which the powerful seek to undermine truths generated from the roots of society. PT calls into question emerging POVs and hopes to re-establish traditional myths of class, church and nation; all of which are quickly becoming unpacked as false gods.
Request for 2017 and every day: Gimme some truth."
Spin has always been the case. The only difference now is the speed with which each new thing appears. 1700 years ago the story of Jesus was spun into a state religion. After the fall of Rome tribal loyalties were subsumed and spun into the concept of the Nation State. Race and Class were continually spun by those in control to establish power.
Most of the things we all take for granted are bullshit; "England", "God", "Jew". "Negro". it's all meaningless crap by which we structure our lives.
The establishment has always done this. The governments of Queen Elizabeth and Augustus certainly pushed their own versions of the Truth. So, we do not live in a Post-Truth world different from a particularly truthful period.
This is a good point. For while the internet has helped foment lies. It has also revealed truths--like the DNC's heinous rigging of its primary for Hillary Clinton--that nobody would have known in a pre-internet period.
Again, you're correct that there are particularities to this period, but one of them isnt it being a Post-Truth one. You need to come up with a new one. I don't think anyone's topped Digital Information Age.
And yet you've continually proven yourself to not having a clue about any of those things. Feel free to define them and prove me wrong. We both know you can't.
The irony...
:-}
Yeah...you.
Of course you could if you could define them. You've proven you can't and proven me right.
The Irony...:)
And it's adorable you write this but you keep proving you have no clue about what counts as evidence, what counts as being justified, and what counts as sufficient reason to believe...just as you did above.
Anyone can provide definitions. That only requires knowing how to use a dictionary. It doesn't prove that the person understands the notions being defined.
Any interested reader can see Creative has just proven again he has no clue when talking about evidence, being justified, and or warrant. He is practically a virtuoso at the art of proving himself wrong.
Clearly you can't since you can't provide either the dictionary definitions or your own, even when you're free to do so.
PT should tell us that hard truth in the social realm is fleeting at best. As for coming up with a new idea; they seem to happen daily.
And yet you can't even define it, which shows you understand it even less. So, we're done on this discussion Creative. I'm getting tired of your proving me right.
Muslim men groom white girls
On the bare face of it that statement is true. However, when you scratch the surface it turns out there is one or two highly publicised instances of groups of men of mostly Muslim origin (not necessarily devout or even practicing) who have been charged with the grooming of girls. This has fuelled an attitude against creeping Sharia, loss of British identity and terrorism.
Yet the "TRUTH" of these instances is statistically insignificant, and the vast majority of abuse of young women is perpetrated by white men, and by people known to the women as a family member.
It does not matter a rat's arse how or if you "DEFINE" your terms.
What the media effectively achieves is a stilted view of the modern world which feeds prejudice. Where is the "TRUTH"?
None of this points to us being in a Post-Truth world as opposed to other times.
PT is about the framing of an item of news. On the twittersphere many people have concluded that
Muslim men groom white girls
On the bare face of it that statement is true. However, when you scratch the surface it turns out there is one or two highly publicised instances of groups of men of mostly Muslim origin (not necessarily devout or even practicing) who have been charged with the grooming of girls. This has fuelled an attitude against creeping Sharia, loss of British identity and terrorism.
Yet the "TRUTH" of these instances is statistically insignificant, and the vast majority of abuse of young women is perpetrated by white men, and by people known to the women as a family member.
It does not matter a rat's arse how or if you "DEFINE" your terms.
What the media effectively achieves is a stilted view of the modern world which feeds prejudice. Where is the "TRUTH"?
These things have been happening for thousands of years. Again, this doesn't point to a post-Truth world
Yes I have, you've been reading things wrong.
Sorry, you haven't proven any of that and you're wrong.
Me four hours ago...
"For my money Post Truth (PT) has more to do with the establishment loosing the ability to push their own version of truth. This has very little to do with objectivity, and everything to do with control of the people by the state. In the presence of 'democracy', where the potential for the state to control things more literally, the powerful have managed to use technologies and ideologies of power over the centuries; church, morality, monarchy, aristocracy. divine right of kings, nationalism, racism,... For the moment, at least, the Internet and social media have revolutionised communication, and the rich and powerful media is n decline unable to keep up with changing social realities.
You ought to be able to see from short list above that NONE of the techniques of control are "objective", and yet the established power has promoted these things AS IF THEY ARE objective. Ask any churchman about the objectivity of morality!
PT is yet another means by which the powerful seek to undermine truths generated from the roots of society. PT calls into question emerging POVs and hopes to re-establish traditional myths of class, church and nation; all of which are quickly becoming unpacked as false gods."
BUT SINCE YOU CAN"T READ - I'll stop answering your idiotic responses TROLL moron.
That only matters if you embrace the dictionary's definitions of evidence and justified. You havent done so. So, I still stand right on the matter. And there is no definition for "sufficient reason to believe."
You have to provide that definition yourself. Again, you've failed to do so, proving me right again.
Thanks, man.
Edited to add..
Originally the post directly above this one quoted me as having said something that I did not. That misquote follows directly below...
"So, you still can't provide definitions for evidence, being justified, and what counts as sufficient reason to believe, as you said people must be able to do."
That adds the necessary context for understanding what's at the beginning of this particular post. Since then, Sand has corrected the quote. At least, at last check...
I made perfect sense, and your memory is terrible. You said "sufficient reason to believe" right below:
You already wrote that nonsense and I've already responded:
And that still stands true. You have both failed to embrace the dictionary's definitions and failed to provide your own. So, we're done and I'm not reading any more of your posts that just continue to prove me right.
If defining them proves you wrong, then anyone capable of copying a dictionary could prove you wrong.
We both know I can.
You're working from an utterly inadequate criterion for what counts as proving you wrong.
Anyone can provide definitions. That only requires knowing how to use a dictionary.
To the above, I wrote...
My participation on this forum serves as more than adequate evidence to warrant the reader's conclusion(s) that I know how to use a dictionary. Concluding otherwise is unjustifiable for it requires thinking/believing that it is possible to produce my writing while not knowing how to use a dictionary.
...then this reply followed...
Really now?
:-}
It seems apparent that there is a need in this world of ours to be able to effectively discriminate between competing viewpoints and/or narratives in terms of which parts of which ones are true and what makes them so.
Sand could've easily acknowledged that he was working from an inadequate criterion for what counts as proving him wrong(about my cognitive ability none-the-less), and then some progress could've been made... perhaps. Maybe not.
There's another bit of irony here...
That sort of doubling-down upon clearly false and/or mistaken thought/belief is precisely what most of Trump's ill-advised statements and behaviours grow into.
A sheer refusal to admit being wrong, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
google 'After Virtue' by McIntyre, if you're not familiar with it. The wikipedia entry on same is decent enough. It's on the large pile of partially-read books on my desk.
Quoting creativesoul
One of the stories in Slate last week, is that every day, one of Trump's aids brings him a folder, with screen shots, excerpts, and snippets from the media - but only positive stories are allowed. Things that show Trump being the great leader he is in his own mind. When he sees things that contradict that, he gets angry and is even known to shout at the television.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/trump_is_the_bubble_president.html
'The fool that knows he is a fool - at least in this he is wise. The fool that thinks he is wise - this is the real fool' - the Dhammapada.
This truly is vile.
Instead last night he retweeted Jack Posobiec tweet from Saturday night:
Jack Posobiec is an American alt-right, pro-Donald Trump Internet activist and conspiracy theorist known primarily for his controversial comments on Twitter. Wikipedia
Trump denounces alt-right movements but then he marginalized the events in Charlottesville by contrasting them to the horrific, but not ideologically inspired, violence in Chicago. I think this legitimizes the alt-position and provide it with a kind of Pyrrhic victory.
Compare this to Obama's tweet on 8/12 where he quoted Nelson Mandela: [tweeted part in bold]
"No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or background or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite," read the tweet, quoting a line of text from Mandela's autobiography, "Long Walk to Freedom."
Twitter noted that Obama's tweet was the most liked tweet they have ever recorded since starting, with 2.5 million likes and climbing.
More pandemonium - the Trump Business Advisory panels all jump ship, various Republican luminaries issue condemnations,. there's uproar around the nation and the world. But, as Trump said in the campaign, he could stand on Fifth Avenue and shoot someone dead, and get away with it.
And this appears to be true.
Regarding the monuments:
Wikipedia
They belong in museums, not as public affronts to black people (15% of US population) who were oppressed before and after the Civil War. The argument that many of the United State's founding fathers were slave owners is shite,
Washington and Jefferson did not betray this country, Lee, Jackson and others did, and were traitors, and these statues are mockeries. Put them out of sight, in museums where they can be viewed for what they are.
So...
An atheist, an agnostic, a buddhist, a jew, a muslim, a hindu, and a christian all walk into a bar and sit down. After a while they drink, talk, and quickly become friends...
If you're waiting for a punchline... don't, cause it ain't a joke. That's just what happens when you're not an asshole.
X-)
T's angry speech at his regular ego-inflation event - this time in Phoenix - again 'takes aim at the media'. If you don't like what's in the mirror, blame the mirror. 'Stupid mirror! Can't you see how ugly you're making me!'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41020779
Accusing the media of misrepresenting his words, and then misrepresenting his own words by leaving out the key part that the media was condemning.
:s why not? I think "buddhists" in the West definitely walk into bars quite frequently.
About which he's still not wrong. Many sides were to blame. This controversy has fast become a farce:
And of course he has to go after the media. What are people thinking?! If you, for example, shame my wife, or insult my children, of course I'll go after you. What are you thinking? I'm a 6 year old if I go after you because you have hurt my family or my reputation? :s What has this world come to, you can't even defend yourself! Apparently, the strong man is supposed to be the one who lets himself and his family be hurt without saying anything. Utterly unbelievable. Apparently, you're a 6 year old if you defend yourself... what a load of crap.
There are many, many more such critical videos. Bill Moyer's just described Trump as an "open sore", a "malevolent fury."..Trump is described here on this thread as a bullshitter. (besides me >:o )
From the OP:
Seems to me to be an apt description of Mr Trump. Many people are fed up with Trump, his lies, his family, his 'jokes'. His current approval rating is 35% and his disapproval rating 59% according to Gallop polls, which sounds about right.
He now threatens to close down government if the House does not provide money for his Mexican Wall ($1.6 billion this yr. I think), for a wall? I don't think he cares, it's all about winning for him and he has not had many wins since he has been in office. He creates all these great truths but they sound like lies to most people.
No they don't sound like lies to most people at all (have you seen Trump's crowds?!). This is again a big big mistake. Once again, you believe the fake polls - like you did during the election. What was I saying back then? Trump will win. I said it from the very beginning in fact. And everyone laughed at me. You said "No no, the polls, the polls" - the polls don't represent the people anymore. The media doesn't represent the people. The media is just the liberal elite who tries to create a fake picture of the world in their own image.
Which group is bigger? The group that go to Trump rallies, or the group that don't?
I rest Cavacava's case.
Gallup isn't a fake poll.
A lot of the polls were right, especially when it was a national poll (i.e. predicting the popular vote). It was a few swing state polls that got it wrong which made the electoral college prediction wrong.
Do all Trump supporters go to Trump rallies? I wouldn't go, but I'm a Trump supporter (for the most part) for example.
No it totally isn't. I can see you know little about politics, but there's no better suggestion of a leader's effectiveness than his ability to generate crowds and get people out. It's a well-known fact that Trump's crowds were larger than Hillary's! Some of the liberal people here in fact used to come on the forums and be like "uhh I don't get it, why are they all going there to chant TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP". The fact Trump is still capable to generate very large crowds is actually in truth a much much more important sign than your silly polls.
Again with the non sequitur. It doesn't matter if Trump has big crowds or if they were larger than Hillary's, because that doesn't refute Cavacava's claim that most people believe Trump to be lying.
You clearly don't understand how polls work.
Cavacava made an assertion. He based that assertion on the polls. The polls aren't accurate to judge the people's sentiments about Trump (we saw that many many times). Gathering crowds is a better criteria.
They're bussed in. Greater numbers of Americans believe Trump ought to be impeached, than believe he's doing a good job.
You got some skimpy polls to back this claim up, mang?
This has his approval at 38% and impeachment at 40%.
So, no, not yet. Have to wait on that one.
Well, if not through polls, how else would you be able to claim what you did? You made the claim, I'm just curious how you came to posit its truth.
I'm skeptical because there are so many variables in polling that it's hard for me to make a decision about something if I don't know how that something was formulated.
It was a poll, in July - http://www.newsweek.com/support-donald-trumps-impeachment-higher-latest-approval-rating-631212
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-poll-favourability-job-approval-more-american-support-removal-latest-a7775781.html
I do believe he will be impeached. I think the Republicans will move against him. Who would support him, considering his disgraceful behaviour towards his colleagues?
That poll doesn't mention gender, political affiliation, adult age range. Hardly conclusive.
Quoting Wayfarer
Same poll looks like. 1500 people is a minuscule tally.
Quoting Wayfarer
I have a feeling you also believed that Donald Trump would never get elected, either :\
What I said! Whatever poll you quote, someone will say 'fake news'. So you were baiting me.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
Damn right, I overestimated the intelligence of the US electorate.
And this is why you'll never understand why he was elected.
Yesterday's ego-inflation event speech:
How anyone can defend this man, boggles the mind, I regret to say.
You're too caught up in binary thinking. People can defend him when he's right and criticize him when he's wrong. Human beings are more nuanced than simply good vs. evil, especially politicians.
It's a poopy poll, nothing fake about it. Shite is shite.
Quoting Wayfarer
But you're overestimating again by thinking Trump will be impeached.
Time will tell. Not much time, we can only hope.
Do you want Pike Mence to assume control? :-O
Anyway, I think it's unlikely that Trump gets impeached merely for being unpopular or being an idiot. He has to actually do things that warrant impeachment, which is rather hard, mind you.
And us Aussies are pretty pro-Yank - well, me anyway. Plus my son lives in Chicago, I am about to visit there for the birth of first grandchild - a Yankee! So I have at least some vested interest.
Doesn't matter. Bus or no bus, if you can gather such crowds you're winning. All politicians try to bus people in, but it's hard or very expensive to do when you have no popularity.
Quoting Wayfarer
>:O You're the guy who used to claim that Hillary Clinton is the best politician there is >:O >:O Just look at this:
1,500 people (if representative) in a survey gives you a 2.58% margin of error at a 95% confidence interval.
This is just nonsense.
It is a recognised factor through history though. In China, for example, they called it divine mandate. Whoever held the divine mandate was simply unstoppable while holding it. In Europe we called it divine right to rule. All these are metaphors for interpreting the spirit of the age.
Like I said, nonsense. I like literal. It's literally better than anything else.
Actually asking people for their opinions is always better than just trying to interpret "the mood". The problem with the latter is that a vocal minority is more noticeable than a silent majority. Most people don't show up to support or protest rallies. They're such a small proportion of the country that they're a useless measure. That's why polls are good (when done right). As I said above, a representative sample of 1,500 gives a 2.58% margin of error at a 95% confidence interval.
Me, too.
So what could the reason be?
Are they honestly blind to the lies? Or is truth expendable?
Do they see the narcissist, but accept it because... they think he will keep them safe? Or something else?
Or are they only apparently intelligent?
Trump got one thing sorta right. He could "stand in the middle of 5th avenue and shoot somebody and [he] wouldn't lose voters".
It beats me. I don't understand it. Sometimes I honestly think it might be the long-term effect of too much exposure to television - a kind of mass loss of grip on reality. But really, I don't know.
It's ludicrous to think 1,500 gives only 2.58% margin of error (within 95% CI). To get these margins of error and the confidence intervals we make a ton of assumptions about the probability distribution of the population (such that we're dealing with a normal distribution where 2 standard deviations takes us to 95% confidence). Most of these assumptions are part of mathematical models that are necessary for us to make any kind of prediction whatsoever. However, there's no way - and I tell you this as a person who has worked with statistics and even took decisions based on them - that this is actually the case in reality.
There's just no way you'll get a 2.58% margin of error based on 1,500 people. Guaranteed. Not when the population is 320 million, spread across very different cultural and geographical regions. If my life depended on taking a decision based on that poll, I'd ignore what it says. This is one instance - which are actually getting more common - when we're deceived by numbers. It's very easy to be deceived by numbers in a scientific culture.
Not to mention that it's really easy for me to pull out whatever numbers I want out of these calcs. And everyone who works in research knows this. That's why mathematical models are known as "black boxes" - you see what goes in, and what comes out, but you don't see what happens inside.
Leaving that behind, if someone comes with that poll to you asking you to - say - make a bet on it, then you should send them to walk your dog in the park, and make no bet whatsoever.
Divine right is something completely different. Monarchs may have claimed divine right, as the king might say that it is the direct will of God that I rule. But such a monarchy requires a powerful church and allegiance to that church, to support the claim. The concept can't apply in democracy where the rulers are elected by the people, and anyone claiming divine right would be regarded as a dictator.
What about people like me then? I barely watch TV at all.
That's not true. In a democracy someone can stand up, claim divine right, and if the people support him, that would be evidence that he has divine right to rule. Now this doesn't require a church. The Chinese never had a church. But they understood that there are spiritual forces at play in the world.
Sounds like a dictator to me.
A dictator would be an illegitimate ruler. The point is precisely that such a ruler would be legitimate until he lost that legitimacy.
You can't see the obvious non sequitur here? That goes a long way to explaining your position, despite not watching television.
Yeah, sure, there is no logical necessity that someone who has the support of the people has divine right to rule, BUT it's a very good indicator. I don't care about logical necessity. There's no logical necessity that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I have no problem believing it!
It is somewhat astonishing that there are those who take your comments here seriously.
Can you please explain how I've shifted my ground? I never claimed there was any logical necessity between the two statements. On the contrary, it is you who have strawmanned my point.
Quoting Banno
You haven't shown this. Sorry.
Quoting Agustino
What about people like Donald Trump who claim they have the support of the people (remember, he had way more people at his inaugural ceremony than Obama), and create the illusion that they have the support of the people (by staging rallies)? Do you think that this is an indication of divine right, or a will to dictatorship?
Well yeah, exactly. Like you always do. Run away. That certainly means you're right. That's how crazy some people are. They think if they don't argue they're right... *shakes head*
It can be both.
To detail on this, the way it can be both is that often divine right to rule can make itself manifest through such means as well.
Your behaviour towards me is identical to your behaviour towards Trump. You sit there throwing your hands in the air that it's astonishing that Trump won... well, if you stop being such a self-righteous person, you may start to see that it's not at all so astonishing. But of course, you won't. You'll keep on, never questioning yourself.
Others think that because they do argue, they are right.
Go over your argument again.
is a non sequitur, since it does not follow from the support of the mob that one has divine right.
Then you shifted your ground from evidence to necessity.
Now you have moved to an ad hom: "Banno always runs away".
But I am still here, just as the cameras were still broadcasting.
Quoting Agustino
Perhaps this goes to explaining your infatuation; you want to be like him.
That probably should incite pathos, but instead i find myself disgusted.
Actually, you're right. The math I saw may have been a little wrong. It's actually 2.53%. See here.
Population size doesn't really matter, except when the sample size is greater than 5% of the population. See here.
Sure, and I certainly think that those who go in the ring and fight have a lot more right to claim victory compared to those who sit on the sidelines.
Quoting Banno
It does not follow in what way? It does not follow logically, that's true. But I made an inductive statement there. I said that having the support of the people is evidence that the person in question has divine right. It's not sufficient for that to be the case, but it is evidence. I mean, could someone have divine right to rule and have no one's support? Then in what sense would he even have right to rule? :s
Quoting Banno
I haven't. I merely pointed out, that if you are going to say it's a non-sequitur - that one doesn't follow from the other - you're probably assuming a logical necessity between the two. Of course there is no logical necessity there. But that doesn't mean it's not evidence. First of all, historically it is evidence. And secondly, we wouldn't expect someone who has divine right to rule not to have the support of the people (in most instances at least).
Quoting Banno
Actually I merely pointed to Trump to illustrate that you have this attitude to everyone who disagrees with you on politics. It's not a very productive attitude, since you can't even have a conversation with people who disagree with you that way.
Does this assume a particular mathematical model? What if those assumptions are wrong? There's a very important effect that comes with size, especially in a country like the US. Maybe the probability is indeed 2.53% or whatever if you're dealing with physical atoms, obeying physical laws, not with people. The fact that you - and your statistics - would claim that the probability of error is the same in both cases is a fault with the methodological/statistical method applied. Unquestionably so.
It's explicitly about polling people.
This is an assumption. Read about what being random means mathematically.
I brought this up specifically to address @Buxtebuddha's claim that "1,500 people is a minuscule tally". 1,500 is a good sample size, if done correctly. So if there are problems with the poll then it isn't due to how many people responded.
But Buxtebuddha is absolutely right. It is.
In fact, due to the nature of diminishing returns, increasing the sample size any further doesn't make much of a difference. See more here:
Yes provided the assumptions are good. They're not.
To name a few.
That the probability distribution is normal.
That the sample is random.
That the sample is representative.
That there are no systematic errors.
That people answer honestly.
That people would actually behave as they say they'd behave if they actually had to vote.
Quoting Michael
On the grounds that the US is very diverse geographically speaking, and it's impossible to quantify this diversity in 1500 people. 50 states. That's 30 people per state assuming they were polled equally, which again wouldn't be representative since some states have more people. Those 30 have to be further divided into categories, blacks, whites, religious, non-religious, etc. When we get down to it, some categories will have very few people. We're going to say how blacks in Arizona vote based on two "randomly" polled black people. Give me a break... That's not representative.
The whole point of a random sample is that it tends to represent diversity. You clearly don't understand statistics.
Sure. And I'm telling you that you cannot capture the actual diversity in just 1500 people and I've even explained you why.
No, because a sample size of 2 is terrible. A sample size of 1,500 people chosen at random from all black people in Arizona would be representative of how blacks in Arizona vote.
I linked you to an article on the subject. That's the explanation.
Oh yeah!! if we were talking just 1500 random black people from Arizona, sure! They'd be representative - of black people from Arizona.
Yes, and if we take 1,500 random Americans then that would be representative of Americans.
:s nope, that's no explanation at all. That's just parroting the theory to me, not showing that you've actually thought about it. You'll start thinking about it when you start thinking about all the things that can go wrong, and realise how uncertain it really is.
Wrong. There's a lot of diversity in Americans. There's black non-religious Americans, black religious Americans, black homosexuals, black lesbians, etc. you're telling me you'll capture each of those groups accurately within 1,500 people total? :s
Yes. If 10% of the population are black and 5% lesbian and 50% religious then a random sample size of 1,500 is likely to also have 10% black, 5% lesbian, and 50% religious, etc. Hence why a random sample size of 1,500 is representative.
Of course, as the article I linked to said, "it is possible that pollsters sample 1,013 voters who happen to vote for Bush when in fact the population is evenly split between Bush and Kerry", but "this is extremely unlikely (p = 2[sup]?1013[/sup] ? 1.1 × 10[sup]?305[/sup]) given that the sample is random".
Yes, that's why unfortunately I think you'd make a not so good decision maker because you trust the "experts" quite blindly. I'm an engineer by profession. I've been trained not to trust any expert whatsoever unless I verify for myself and think through their assumptions.
Quoting Michael
And that presumes that the 10% black out of the 1500 - meaning 150 people - are representative of the black population in the whole country. That's false. Blacks in Minnesota will probably be different than blacks in DC. And you're not adequately going to quantify that.
And if 5% of blacks are in Minnesota and 5% are in DC then due to the random sampling it is likely that 5% of the blacks in the sample are from Minnesota and 5% are from DC.
The statistics is pretty clear. You arguing against the experts without having their expertise is like me arguing with you over how best to build a bridge.
No, it's not that unlikely, because that assumes the whites (to pick an example), etc. are randomly distributed through the cities, geographical regions of US, and so forth.
Quoting Michael
Right, so about 8 black people will be taken as representative for all blacks in Minnesota, and all blacks in DC :s
What is it with Republicans and experts?
Next you're going to be a climate change denier.
Everyone should be skeptical of experts, not just Republicans. To me, it's more amazing how easily people bow their heads to experts once the experts perform some mathematical magic tricks that they don't understand ;) Much like witch doctors did 2000 years ago.
There's a difference between being skeptical and refusing to believe that they're right (claiming them wrong) because their conclusions are contrary to your non-expert expectations. Go study statistics and then get back to me.
>:O >:O >:O
Mathematical magic tricks like hmmm, statistics?
Nowdays it seems that people are OK with statistics if the statistical result tells something they want to hear. Otherwise it's fake news.
No, if someone came with such statistics to me to predict a result, I'd bet against it and win some money actually :D - so I would like it very much!
There's no doubt some truth to that, but if you're thinking specifically of the "backfire effect", it's worth checking out this interview: "After new research, however, it seems that the backfire effect might not be as strong as once thought."
Glorying in your own ignorance. Stats is a basic literacy.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/08/23/paula_white_defends_trump_post_charlottesville_on_jim_bakker_s_tv_show.html
I think this is actually a serious misunderstanding of the gravity of our modern situation. I think Alasdair MacIntyre was right in his book After Virtue that we, as a society, no longer have the tools and the means required to settle moral disputes.
You presuppose that the atheist, agnostic and so on so on (to adopt a Zizek line) can become friends, but this is already to presuppose the victory of the atheist. The real problem of course is that these are very different ways of life, which are mutually contradictory. When you say we can all get along, you are effectively doing harm to non-atheistic (I'm using atheist in a very loose sense here) ways of life. It is what the atheist always promotes - toleration - but toleration means the destruction of beliefs that disagree with his.
Conflicts will only intensify in the future and get worse and worse because these groups of people simply cannot live together and we have no means of conflict resolution at our disposal. Indeed, living together in the so-called modern Western society is being defeated and humiliated for a religious person. A Hindu and a Christian have more in common, and indeed can be friends, much better than a Christian and an atheist. There is after all not such a big divide between the Hindu and the Christian. The divide is superficial - different doctrines here and there, different theologies, and so on so forth. But fundamentally the Christian and the Hindu agree on the means of living in a community. We agree about the importance of respecting traditions, respecting authority, respecting one's family, sexual morality, how people should dress and so on so forth. There is a deep agreement that there exists a spiritual realm which is more important hierarchically than this material realm.
However, with the atheist, this is very different. The atheist cannot comprehend for example how sex has a spiritual meaning, and thus the atheist has a completely different understanding of sex. This understanding of it translates into his behaviour - and how he interprets the behaviours of others. We cannot have both his behaviour and my behaviour in society because they are mutually opposed. Indeed, if his behaviour is accepted, then mine is rejected. And I cannot allow that to happen. For example, he will interpret me teaching my daughter that it is immoral to have an abortion as oppression of women. Neither can the atheist allow his behaviour to be rejected. He cannot allow me to have my moral standard, because if I do, and I am successful, there is no place for his way of life, for his way of life will disappear since people will shun what is now viewed as immoral behaviour. Thus conflict is inevitable.
And these labels aren't very useful because many religious people are actually atheists in the West. They are religious only in name. That is not of much use, is it?
And what makes you think I don't know stats? I know stats very well, that's exactly why I have the privilege of distrusting them. Because I understand what is going on.
How much does Crooked pay you? >:)
Your responses to Michael.
Edit: in a bit more detail, Michael presented a mathematical analysis in support of his claim. You did not reply in kind, but instead simply claimed that the experts could not be trusted.
So are you lying, and know that what you are saying is wrong, or are you bullshitting, and don't care so long as you are supporting Trump?
He actually didn't present a mathematical analysis, he just indicated how the pollsters analysed the data they had collected. I've already critiqued that methodology and shown by example how some of the following assumptions are wrong:
Quoting Agustino
I don't understand it. There's a lot of depth in your other posts, even though I don't always agree with them, although in some respects I do. But then you come out in defense of the indefensible, which simply destroys your credibility. I am not going to get into another pointless argument, but I am convinced that in this regard, your judgement is flawed.
And he did that using poetics.
No, he actually did that by pointing me to the methodology of the pollsters. Then I critiqued that methodology. That's the facts of what happened. Now you may disagree with my criticism, and you can think that the methodology applied (including the mathematical analysis) is valid, but that's an entirely different story, which has little to do with the facts.
The very strange thing is that I feel exactly the same way about you. You also have so much insight sometimes, you are a spiritual person, you are not blind. Moreover, you understand the value of social conservatism, you even are one, and yet you support the most monstrous of candidates - like Hillary Clinton - out of fear of someone like Trump. How can a man like you be afraid of a Trump? A Trump is very visible, but Hillary is invisible. And with her would have come the likes of Amy Schumer and Madona triumphant! Can you just imagine? Conservatives would have been expelled from the US! What would have happened with your social conservatism? Madona offered people a blowjob to vote for Hillary Clinton - that already is sufficient not to support Hillary. The fact that she associated herself with such people is sufficient. Not to mention all the corruption scandals, the deletion of 30,000 emails, her husband's behaviour towards women and her protection of him, and so on so forth. It really amazes me, your behaviour.
At least with other people around here, I can say they are very superficial and have little understanding. What else could be expected? But you have no such excuse.
How a man like you can bear to associate yourself with these people (who are the absolute opposite of all that religion and spirituality stand for) is to me inconceivable. I'd rather prefer death than to associate myself with such people.
And what's so bad about Trump? Yes he's a narcissist. So what? His politics is still better than the politics of the non-narcissist but Crooked Hillary. Look at him. He is upset that people are pulling down the statues in US, and destroying the heritage of the country. That is the sign of a good soul, of nobility. He even disrespects his advisors to hold on to this position. Hillary would instead have congratulated them for pulling the statues down! She switches her position - such as on gay marriage - with the wind. She has no integrity - even the integrity that emerges out of ego is better!
And Trump hasn't done anything comparable (or worse)?
So if some celebrity offered people a blowjob to vote for Trump then that's a reason not to support him?
What do you mean by this? You'd vote for someone just because you can't stand the idea that some people you don't like will gloat if their candidate wins? That's bizarre.
I think a lot of your "defences" of Trump are ridiculous, and a lot of your attacks on his opponents are hypocritical. I don't even know what it is you actually like about Trump. It's all very vague ("he's noble and has a good soul"). Is it just that he identifies as a Republican? Or are there specific policies that he has implemented (or wants to implement) that you agree with, like the Muslim or transgender ban or the Mexican wall?
If it is just the case (as I believe it is, recalling our discussions prior to the election) that the real reason you support Trump is that you think he's the best chance at having social conservatism promoted (overturning rulings on gay marriage and abortion and the like) then it would be far more honest and productive if you just came out and admitted it, and stopped trying to pretend that Trump himself is a good guy or a competent president. He's shown himself to be anything but. All he seems to care about is his image and his bank account.
As far as I know, not really. He has maybe been cruel in some business deals, but I wouldn't say he's actually done as much as Clinton. In terms of personal sexual morality, he might be worse off than Hillary Clinton though, I can grant that.
Quoting Michael
No, if you read what I said, you'll see that I clarify further on that:
Quoting Agustino
She could have come out and said that she thanks Madona for her support, but her comment was not decent, and women aren't sexual objects who are only good for sex, and therefore we as a society shouldn't try to promote that image. But she didn't. Instead, she gladly accepted Madona's support, and not only, but she spoke with her, she invited her to her rallies, and so on so forth. That is already going too far. Such a person lacks integrity and backbone. She would do anything probably - including probably give a blowjob herself - if it could get her elected. That's terrible. A President should have integrity and should be willing to go against public opinion when public opinion is wrong. Clinton hasn't shown the capacity for that at all.
In addition, this affiliation between Presidents and celebrities - and Obama was already doing this stupid crap - is very very pernicious. Hollywood has no place at all in politics. We risk setting a very dangerous precedent if we allow Hollywood to influence elections and garner at some point even the power to decide who the winner is.
Trump, on the other hand, disavowed the KKK when they endorsed him. Whether he did it honestly or not doesn't matter right now, since we're only talking about the public statements that they made. The fact remains that publicly he disavowed it, which isn't what Clinton did with regards to those supporters of her.
Quoting Michael
No, I never said he's a noble and a good soul. I said that his impulse - to defend the statues from being taken down - is noble and good. The thing with Trump is that he is unconsciously good. He does not realize what he is doing, but some of the impulses he has are good. In fact, if you read what I said:
Quoting Agustino
Far from suggesting Trump is a good character, I said his character doesn't matter as much since his politics are still better than Clinton's.
Quoting Agustino
This shouldn't suggest Trump has a good character or soul - for then it would contradict the above. It should rather suggest that Trump has intimations of a good character or soul. I'd say those tendencies that he has, are unconscious - they're just deeply ingrained in him.
Quoting Michael
Whether I agree with them or not isn't very relevant to the discussion. And that's because morally speaking I'm indifferent to whether we build a wall between US or Mexico, whether Muslims from certain countries are banned from entering US, whether transgenders can or can't serve in the US Army, etc. These decisions are morally indifferent to me. They should be purely pragmatic decisions. Sure, I have preferences on them, but I wouldn't worry for a second if we chose to take the opposite course of action.
What I do want is to destroy the stupid political correctness that is like "OMG we can't build a wall, great nations don't build walls, we're all friends etc. etc." - they're trying to make a moral issue out of a non-moral issue, and in that I have to fight them. A country has absolute right to build a wall, to say these people aren't coming in our country, etc. This is part of the sovereignty of a country, and it's important.
Quoting Michael
I respect him because of positions he publicly takes on issues with regards to, for example, the statues, or the military, the veterans, God, etc.
Quoting Michael
Well I've been very honest about that. I'm not going to declare that he himself is a good guy, but I have no problem declaring that he's a competent president, because he actually is. I think we do need a President who will stick it in the face of the media and the corporate world who've started to think they have an absolute right of dictating our morality and culture. Of course there's going to be a massive conflict between the President and these people, and I think we actually need that conflict, I'm very happy it's going on.
Quoting Michael
It doesn't sound to me like a guy who cares only about his image and bank account. Certainly such a guy wouldn't show his support for not taking the statues down, and in the process get in a huge fight with the media, risk ruining his reputation, and lose out on support from part of the business community. He totally wouldn't do that. So either Trump is stupid - which he is not - or he has some noble drives inside of him that are motivating him through his own very big ego.
This is confusing. Trump is very pro-business. Most of his executive orders seem to be aimed at reducing regulations, and he has plans to reduce corporate tax. He's hired many big businessmen into government. He still owns the Trump Organization, refusing to divest from it.
And it isn't accurate to say that he sticks it in the face of the media, given his love of Fox & Friends, Sean Hannity, and Steve Bannon (who he gave a powerful position in the White House). He just lashes out at anyone that is critical of him. That's got nothing to do with some righteous fight against the "evil" newspapers and everything to do with him being a narcissist. Anything he doesn't like he just proclaims to be "Fake News".
I honestly don't understand how you can't see all this. Clearly one of us must be completely blinded by bias.
Yes, he has. Richest White House team in history. So what? I'm not judging his hirelings, I'm judging him now.
Quoting Michael
Okay, I don't think those things are bad in themselves.
Quoting Michael
Yes, he apparently does, but isn't actively involved in running it. Is that a problem?
Quoting Michael
It's true he's friendlier with Fox, but Fox has a better and more truthful portrayal of what he does than the other media channels. But even Fox is critical at times, and Trump is also critical of Fox (though not of Sean Hannity >:O )
Quoting Michael
Whom he just fired.
Quoting Michael
He does seem to have that tendency, yes.
Quoting Michael
So he supported not taking down the statues because the media lashed at him? :s
I wrote a long impassioned response here, but - forget about it. I'm here to discuss philosophy not sound off.
It's odd how one can be caught up in trivial pissing competitions. Good for thread length, but not of any value.
I sounded of earlier this week at the way the form of reasonable discourse is trivialised by bullshit.
When truth is not relevant, discourse becomes just a pissing competition.
While I will be happy to see this thread get to 100 pages, I would also be pleased to see it contain some quality comment.
What makes ethical statements different to other statements is that they are supposedly what everyone ought do.
Agustino's Hindu, Muslim and Catholic might agree in their condemnation of the atheist, but once the atheist is gone that agreement will break as they take to each other.
A fascist accepts that fascists may use coercion; Islamists accept that muslims can use coercion; but liberal ethics holds that my freedom ends at the tip of your nose.
OF course there are liberals who coerce; that's a problem. But the proper liberal response is to protest and reject coercion in the name of liberalism.
A liberal framework is the only option I am aware of that allows detente.
Hear hear. But the framework relies on honesty and respect for facts. And it is documented beyond question that Trump has no respect for facts.
More binary banalities. The fact is that Trump sometimes lies and sometimes tells the truth.
...and has no care for either.
Quoting Thorongil
Okay I see. I did manage to read your post before you deleted though, but I will not go over all the points since you have removed it, something that I think was a good thing!
Suffice to say that there are some points which you mentioned with which I agree regarding Trump, and some that I disagree with. The biggest one I disagree with is that Trump lies worse than other politicians. He doesn't. If anything, I'd say he's more honest, even if it ends up badly for him. You have yet to show me that Trump says whatever it takes to get elected, to be popular, etc.
The problem with saying Trump lies is that the media is nit picking. For example, they say he lied about Mexico paying for the wall. No he didn't. He just changed from saying Mexico will pay to Mexico will reimburse the US for it. So what? His intention remains the same, at least as he voices it, that Mexico will pay. That's not lying in my mind. Lying would be to be like "Nah, Mexico ain't gonna pay anymore, it will be all on us!"
The other point that I wanted to address is that you suggested I have a hang up with authority, and I fear that order will dissolve. Well, I have very little to fear, because as far as I'm concerned order has already - long ago - dissolved. Probably order has dissolved more than 100 years ago already!! We've really got nothing to lose by this point. This is all an effort to restore order, with - I will give you that - a low probability of success.
As for my hang up with authority being due to coming from a more authoritarian regime which has dissolved, that's false since I hold it that Communist rule was worse than post-communist rule, and in fact Communist rule is responsible for the troubles that Eastern European countries face today.
As for the fact that you noticed that I'm against democracy, well that's no secret. Democracy is the worst system of government, with the sole exception of tyranny which is indeed worse. In fact, democracy is also a tyranny - it's called the tyranny of the majority. The majority can only ever be average - thus democracy is a force that pulls society towards the average, the mediocre. The behaviour of the mediocre, their way of life - that is what gets promoted in democracy, that is what is valued. A spiritual person can only be opposed to democracy - this nefarious system of government that has killed both Jesus and Socrates. "Who do you want?" - "Uhhh we want Barabbas, we want Barabbas!" say the stupid masses - "And what shall I do with Jesus whom they call Christ?" - "Crucify Him, Crucify Him!"
The masses are animals, who have never understood the enlightened man. In fact, they have tried to kill him. Spinoza was stabbed and isolated. Schopenhauer could not find his entire life a true kindred soul. All the wise men of history have been forced to live in caves and in isolation. The masses are a danger to the wise man, and they have to be ruled, as Spinoza said, through hope and fear.
A spiritual person cannot be a democrat. That would be a contradiction in terms.
What tools and means would those be - that we once had but no longer do?
I presuppose nothing. To quite the contrary, I'm reporting upon what I've witnessed and/or actively been a part of myself.
It's not about a 'victory' for the atheist.
Religions are not at all equivalent to a way of life.
The problem isn't that 'these are very different ways of life'. The problem is that they're misunderstood as such.
Getting along doesn't necessitate the destruction of any belief other than those which make it impossible to get along. There are people who claim to be from every religion that harbor those.
It's not about religion... exclusively.
Affirming the consequent? That is precisely what need argued for.
Indeed, and everyone ought to do them because if they don't, then the particular way of life that the ethics sustains becomes impossible.
Quoting Banno
That is indeed possible, and that was the case in the past. However, one would hope that we have reached sufficient enlightenment to realize that all religions strive to reach after truth, even if some may reach higher than others.
Quoting Banno
We need to define our terms here. In my mind "coercion" is the use of physical force, applied with the permission of the law, to enforce moral standards. I am against that kind of coercion. Morality must be freely chosen.
Quoting Banno
But liberalism is a problem, not a solution. Liberalism seems to presuppose that my freedom can be conceived independently from yours. Each individual is seen as an atom, separate but relating with the others. Whereas I think the reality is that people are more like links in a chain, we're intimately related one with the other, such that my freedom must always be conceived also in terms of your freedom. That is why you say:
Quoting Banno
This is the profound mistake. My freedom cannot end at the tip of your nose because we are so intimately related that what you do can limit my freedom. For example, take abortion. The liberal argues that the woman should be able to choose what she does with her body - in this case whether she has sex and whether she chooses to keep the baby or not. But this is not at all the case - because in reality her freedom to decide impacts both the baby's freedom (by killing him/her it is taken away) and also her partner (who may have wanted to keep the baby). Thus it is not at all clear that "my freedom ends at the tip of your nose". It may be possible that what is going on inside your nose affects me, and limits my freedom - and you OUGHT to take this into account, even if you ultimately have to decide. If you become a totalitarian now and say "it's none of your business, it's my decision, bla bla" you have oppressed me. If you refuse to take into account other people who may be affected by your actions on account of your freedom, then you have oppressed. And most self-styled liberals today do exactly this. And you have done so under the magic of an illusion (a false conception of freedom).
Quoting Banno
I don't think so. I think quite the contrary, the liberal framework intensifies conflict by putting a rug over it and covering it up under a set of assumptions (such as the conception of freedom) which does not reflect reality. It is nothing but magic.
A rational moral framework. Rational discourse.
Quoting creativesoul
Yes, I've witnessed this too, but the religious people who did that came on the losing end.
Quoting creativesoul
They are. If you cannot see the blindingly obvious thing that the ways of life of religious people are different, then there's not much I can do.
Quoting creativesoul
Okay, so if I maintain that abortion is immoral and you maintain that it's not, how are we going to get along when we as a society have to act one way or the other? :s
We still have rational moral frameworks. It's less about tolerance and more about beginning by virtue of valuing another human, first and foremost, because they are human. We are much more alike than unalike. All religious belief is subject to familial, historical, and cultural particulars. That's not the end of an argument, it's the beginning of rational moral frameworks.
This is where I think you tend towards fascism. You have a real hang-up about authority and control. Banno raises the 'tradition of liberalism', and you answer 'what about abortion?' Who is talking about 'having abortions'? What has that got to do with the discussion?
I agree with you that the decline of spiritual principles is the cause of moral and social decay. But you simply can't assert that your way - whatever that way is - is the only way. That's what you're saying here. The idea of 'principled opposition' is basic to democracy, yet you don't seem to understand it.
Quoting Agustino
Trump demonstrably tells untruths, all the time - sometimes outright lies, other times distortions or half-truths, and other times falsehoods out of ignorance. This is documented. The media is not 'nit-picking' - the list of those lies is here, and these have been exhaustively fact-checked by large teams of people. The fact that Trump lies more than Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Richard Nixon, or any other US President or Presidential candidate. This is a rolled-gold, 100% solid, verifiable and indisputable fact, and to doubt it is to either be deceived or to be party to it. It's all there black and white, read the list.
I know that CNN, NY Times and Washington Post have their own biases and blinkers on, but they have teams of journalists working on this material, and if you believe they're all engaged in a conspiracy, then really I do think that your mind has been stolen by Internet memes.
You also must understand, with Trump it is not 'conservative vs liberal or 'republican vs democrat'. There are many Republicans and conservatives, who think that Trump has hijacked their party, who are deeply furious with his lies and lack of principle. There are formal groups called "Republicans Against Trump'. By all means, be conservative, support the Republican Party, but you need to understand that Trump hates the Republican party. He routinely belittles and derides its leadership, trashes its policies and undermines its ability to get its legislation passed. And this is what you're defending.
Democracy is the least worst option. It often totally sucks, but how is the alternative NOT some form of tyranny? The only thing that is between Trump and martial law, are the democratic institutions and the press.
And I'm sorry to say, but I think JornDoe has you pretty well nailed. It's only that I do detect an element of actual philosophical insight, that causes me to bother persisting with you.
My spider-sense gave me the impression of an "any means to my end" sentiment. Agustino would possibly go for some specific theocracy over democracy.
A vomit of insults - sometimes one needs to vomit to get the poison out. Feel better now? ;)
Next time, try not to drink so much my friend.
I don't think it's a hang up at all. It's absolutely important. Democracy has in fact killed some of the most enlightened people who have ever lived. It's just a fact. That is also why Plato for example spoke so badly about democracy. In fact, most of the world's greatest thinkers in history have been opposed to democracy. Authority and control are absolutely essential, and there's nothing about fascism here. Fascism is the imposition of morality by physical force, I'm not talking about that kind of illegitimate authority. I'm rather talking about the kind of authority that would exist in a constitutional monarchy.
Quoting Wayfarer
The abortion issue is absolutely important. Because the "tradition of liberalism" gives the wrong answer to it - and we see it in practice. People who are pro abortion argue based on the arguments of liberalism. That is a problem. Nobody can endorse liberalism while not taking this into account.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, it is basic to democracy, but I have already said I don't have much of a high opinion about democracy. So you should start out by telling me why I should reconsider democracy first of all. To tell me that "principled opposition" is basic to democracy is irrelevant granted that I don't consider democracy a valid system of government.
Quoting Wayfarer
Why do you think I'm saying "my way" is the only way? And what do you mean by "my way"?
Quoting Wayfarer
I will look through that list. But to be honest, just by skimming through, it looks quite small for a politician.
Quoting Wayfarer
I disagree about this as of now.
Quoting Wayfarer
I never claimed they're engaged in a conspiracy. Oh no, that would be far too absurd. They're doing it unconsciously - they're driven by an ideological agenda that they have internalised, and they see the world through its lens. How have they internalised it? By living in a society governed by the values that Hollywood promotes. Now anything that is threatening to their ideology, they perceive as dangerous, and seek to destroy. They cannot see the world straight. That is the problem.
Again, it is almost impossible to find a conservative at these media agencies. You think Don Lemon, etc. are conservatives? :s Why not? Because of the peer pressure and culture of the place which shapes people into what they have to be in order to work there. It's quite an unconscious thing.
Quoting Wayfarer
I am not a Republican. My support for Trump is above the support for the Republican Party. It is a party full of cronies and profiteering monkeys, I would not support them. I may support individual people from within the Republican Party, but not the party as such. So I am absolutely happy when I see Trump hammering away at the Republican leadership. That is exactly what I think should be done.
You think for example I supported George W. Bush? :s
Quoting Wayfarer
Well, to begin with, there are other non-democratic systems that are not tyrannical. Tyranny means irrational authority. But a constitutional monarchy for example would be a rational form of authority, and therefore good. I much agree with Plato - society should be ruled by philosopher kings.
Quoting Wayfarer
Well, sorry to tell you but are you now suggesting that I am:
Quoting jorndoe
That is an outright lie.
Yes he made a tiny statement in answer to a question: "Are you for invading Iraq?" which he answered "Yeah, I guess so". That's not a lie. Give me a break. He never totally endorsed the war. As far as I'm concerned, he was still one of the first people to start opposing it. Anyone can make such a statement at first. He answered a casual question casually.
I really am perturbed that people can say that he lied about this. Absolutely perturbed. How is that even a lie?!
Yes, he said a falsehood, but it's not a lie. He thought it's an all-time record, and he was wrong. No big deal.
Reportedly he said this in November and he was pushing for an investigation on it. I agree that this is a lie.
Hyperbole and figure of speech. Truth is, it was a massive crowd. Not "biggest ever", but quite big.
Trump never said this, it was some of his associates which did.
They didn't show actual voter fraud, but they showed it's very possible to commit voter fraud. So again, not a complete lie. There's quite a bit of truth in there.
Doesn't sound like a lie to me.
When you investigate most of this shit-storm, most of it is empty air and nothing more (although there are some real lies, even in this small sample I bothered to check). Reporters are told "write a story on this, hurry quick quick!". They research for 5 minutes around, read a few words here and there, and then pull out a story. I've spoken with people who work in Newspapers - I know how this stuff happens, and how little care is given to it. And how do they pull out a story? By having a feel for what they should write.
One of my friends also told me "you should come with me to XXX place, they have the best steak ever there!" -> is he a liar now, because there's some place in the world where there's better steak?! Of course not, I understand what he means by that. Same with Trump.
It is really beyond reason that a spiritual person can consider democracy - the rule of the stupid masses - where rulers are temporary, and not in fact rulers at all, but rather thieves and abusers - as an acceptable system of government. Democracy is a disease, which very likely is close to the root of the loss of spiritual values. Democracy - whatsoever is immoral is the product of democracy. Debauchery is a very democratic affair afterall - it is indeed somewhat difficult to imagine a non-democratic man in a night club.
This summary of Plato's position from Wikipedia sounds EXACTLY like a description of our current society today.
Quoting Agustino
Right - so you might be reactionary, rather than fascist.
But, what are real alternatives to democracies? Theocracies, or monarchies? Any examples of those? You're thinking - what - Tehran? Saudi Arabia?
Quoting Agustino
Because you don't understand or respect the issue of 'principled dissent'. In your view, there can only be one true way. That is mirrored in all your comments about authority, democracy and spirituality - there can only be one way. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Quoting Agustino
When Banno was talking about liberalism, he isn't talking about the 'conservative vs liberal' dichotomy in the US. 'Liberalism' is an over-arching political philosophy which allows for principled dissent. You give no indication that you understand what this means.
Quoting Agustino
Nonsense. There is nothing else remotely close. But it doesn't matter to you, because you're not actually interested in facts; you like Trump, because you like how he makes you feel. He projects what you interpret as authority and control, so you wave the placards and repeat the slogans, without actually necessarily being aware that's what you're doing.
Quoting Agustino
And you're not? You think I'm not capable of detecting the bias and agenda of the Washington Post, and somehow, you are?
Quoting Agustino
But, he's not 'hammering away' because he has anything better to offer. He has no principles and no grasp of politics. But, never mind - placards and slogans, eh? 'Lock her up! Lock her up!'
Quoting Agustino
Look this summary of a demagogue from the same source:
The irony of appealing to Plato in support of Trump is rich indeed.
Meh. The only part I disagree with is your restricting coercion to what is legally permitted. One can coerce illegally. Moot point.
The other word we ought be clear about is oppression. Oppression is not being obliged to avoid coercing others.
Quoting Agustino
Let's be clear that "My freedom ends at the tip of your nose" is an injunction, not an observation.
If we agree, as you say, that morality must be freely chosen, then we need social injunctions such that all are free to so choose."My freedom ends at the tip of your nose" is just that. My freedom is limited in that I ought, as far as possible, not subject you to coercion.
Yes, we are intimately related, and in such a way that the tip of your nose ought place limits on my freedom. Not to follow this injunction will lead to true oppression.
Also nicely expressed by The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789:
Why so? If you think I'm a reactionary, then democrats are also reactionaries - they've taken us back to Ancient Greece! But of course, I'd make no such claim, because today's democracy is different than Greek democracy, just as today's constitutional monarchy would be different than yesterday's constitutional monarchy.
Quoting Wayfarer
I know what you'll do here. You'll ask me for examples from today's world, I won't be able to give any, and then you'll claim that therefore democracy is the only real possibility. The problem with this argument is that of course since democracy is the dominating system it will make it seem like it is the only real alternative. That's what always is the case with political systems - when one system dominates, it seems like the only real alternative (that's part of the condition it needs to meet in order to dominate and not be replaced). Furthermore, a proposed better system will always be different than the "real" options currently existing by default.
Quoting Wayfarer
No, none of the two. I said constitutional monarchy - Tehran is a theocracy, and Saudi is an absolute monarchy. There's differences between those three systems of government. Labelling non-democratic people as fascist is of course an attempt to deny other alternatives and affirm democracy as the only "real" possibility, but that's precisely what we should be investigating.
Quoting Wayfarer
In what way though? I think there's generally multiple ways to find out the answer to a technical problem - such as how tall is a building - but I don't think you're intending to refer to this.
Quoting Wayfarer
Ah, so it's just about authority, democracy and spirituality. Well with regards to democracy, I feel that it is you who thinks that democracy is the only "real" way, whereas I'm willing to take into consideration other ways. There isn't only "one way" in politics, but there can be a way which is better than the others - some of the time, not in all matters though.
With regards to spirituality, there are multiple ways and paths (represented by the multiple religions). So each way or path is useful as far as it goes. But there is one way which reaches farther than the others.
Quoting Wayfarer
I think people are allowed to dissent (speak out against something) provided they do this in a reasonable manner and without the use of violence. They should be respected for that.
Quoting Wayfarer
I wouldn't say principled dissent is the core principle of liberalism. Liberalism is the over-arching political philosophy of today that wants to claim that it is the only legitimate way, which is a problem. That's why the most "liberalist" nation, the US, has so frequently invaded other parts of the world - in order to bring liberation, since only liberation is legitimate. Of course, this has been just a coverup for imposing their own way of life on other people, and depriving them of any actual freedom.
Quoting Wayfarer
Well I am interested in the facts, my problem with many of those lies is that they're not factual and they're misinterpreted and twisted around. You keep talking as if Trump was my ideal President, and of course he's not, in fact I made it clear from long ago that I support Trump only as a way to destroy the system.
Quoting Wayfarer
I don't think it's this. Rather many of his actions are good. Attacking the media, attacking the Republican Party, bringing back the notion of protecting heritage and not taking down the statues, encouraging respect of law and order, including the sovereignty of a country, and so on so forth. This is true even if his intentions are wrong.
Quoting Wayfarer
I never said you're incapable and I'm capable. The sentence you quoted was simply justification for why the media is biased. It's not because there is a massive conspiracy (as you suggested in our previous exchange that I would believe). But rather because:
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, in many cases this is true.
Quoting Wayfarer
I think he actually does have some principles, maybe not consciously, but he has some ingrained in him. Why did he jump up to protest against the taking down of the statues? It wasn't politically expedient for him to do so, was it? Quite the contrary, the wind is blowing in the opposite direction. But he stood up to speak against it. This suggests to me that there are some other drives inside of him. The ego is important, but the ego can be taken over by such principles, because, for example, he'll want to think about himself as the big someone who stops these thugs from destroying American heritage.
Sure, but I have been saying this for a very long time. And I've been very badly criticised because of it. How dare I say that we as a society really value "pussy-grabbing" and the like? How dare I say Trump really represents the majority as they are, not as they'd like to pretend to be?
Sure.
Quoting Banno
I think it's a fact that all are free to choose, rather you might mean that their freedom to choose should be protected.
Quoting Banno
Ah, it would be great if in practice freedom was so limited! But this is often not taken into account, often quite the contrary, coercing me is taken to be your freedom. You must be aware that what is deemed to be one's freedom is very often exactly that which harms another. For example, pro-choice people view it as the woman's freedom to do what she wants with her body, but this is precisely that which harms the baby.
The dictionary finally catching up to reality, thousands of years later. :)
I'll ask you a question, and you will evade the answer.
Democracy is not 'a system'. Democracy is the opportunity to suggest 'a system'. You still don't get that.
Quoting Agustino
Without saying what they are.
Quoting Agustino
Which is yours, right?
Quoting Agustino
Because he hasn't got an f*ing clue what they mean, but that it would appeal to the racists and nazis that support him.
Democracy is not the opportunity to suggest the system, it's the opportunity to suggest someone to be in charge of particular functions within an already pre-established system. This difference is very important to understand.
Quoting Wayfarer
I did say very clearly constitutional monarchy as an example. How am I not saying what they are? What would you want me to tell you that is missing?
Quoting Wayfarer
I do think Christianity - of which I'm a member - is the spiritual path that reaches the farthest from those that I know, yes. It would be absolutely silly if I didn't think so - otherwise what would I be doing being a Christian? But this isn't to say that other spiritual paths aren't also valuable.
Likewise if you don't think Buddhism is the right path, or that it goes further than other paths, why are you even a Buddhist? :s
Quoting Wayfarer
How do you know that he hasn't got a clue what they mean? On what do you base this assertion?
Furthermore, how many racists and neo-nazis are there? Let's say 50,000 in the whole of the US. Would anyone bother to appeal to 50,000 people for political support if they are a (smart) opportunist looking to win elections while risking alienating millions?! 63 million people voted for Donald Trump. That's his base, and most of them aren't neo-nazis, KKK, etc. So either Trump is stupid and trying to appeal to groups that have no influence whatsoever, OR he has a personal sentiment that taking down the statues is destroying the heritage of the US. I'm inclined to believe the latter. And I have no reason to believe that he has no clue what the statues mean.
There may be a few unregistered racists in the US.
Good luck with that.
Quoting Agustino
That's not the point. The point is that democracy enables principled opposition. When you say that democracy ought to be abolished, and that it is impossible to be 'spiritual and democratic', then what you're recommending is some form of authoritarianism, where divergence of views is not tolerated. However, you don't seem to understand the implications of what you're saying. I think you yourself don't understand the implications of your arguments, because they're being driven by your emotions, not by rational analysis and certainly not by any credible political philosophy.
Quoting Agustino
The fact that Trump is notoriously clueless, doesn't read anything, doesn't remember anything. They have to his official papers with his name so he bothers reading them.
Listen, Agostino - this thread is about post-truth, and Trump's role in it. I presented a list of more than a thousand falsehoods, spoken by Trump, published and on the record, and you couldn't even be bothered to respond to it. You just waved it away. The fact of Trump's lies doesn't matter to you, because you're not interested in facts, which anyone reading this thread can see. Over and out.
Hmm well you say good luck with that, but until now you were saying that I made no suggestions, while in truth I had made them. So why is it suddenly that you don't want to talk about them anymore?
Quoting Wayfarer
It doesn't pertain to the essence of democracy to enable principled opposition. Constitutional monarchy can also enable principled opposition.
Quoting Wayfarer
This is not at all true. If democracy isn't appropriate, it doesn't follow that authoritarianism (or tyranny) is the answer. This makes it very difficult to argue with you because you're effectively giving me false alternatives - either democracy, or Nazis (or some dictatorial/authoritarian equivalent of them). That's not at all the case.
Quoting Wayfarer
You do realise this is ALL speculation. So you're going to invent whether Trump has a clue or not about the statues, and then you're going to attack his comments based on that. Sorry, that's actually post-truth.
Quoting Wayfarer
?? I did respond to it.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/100318
Quoting Wayfarer
No I didn't. I've read through the list and I've analysed a few of the so-called lies myself. Not all that are listed there are actually lies. I hope you realise that. Just because a journalist calls them lies, and says so and so about them, doesn't mean they're actually lies. You have to listen to or read the original sources and make up your own mind about them. Yes, some of them are no doubt lies, but others, probably more than 50% aren't.
I don't read the newspapers with regards to the US. My opinion about Trump is based mostly on primary sources alone. I listen to what he says, and I've listened to what he said for a long time. Including to his political opponents, like Hillary Clinton. I don't visit Trump loving websites on the internet, or anywhere else. My opinion isn't influenced by New York Times, or whatever other newspaper, because I never read the political sections of those news sources. My opinion about Trump isn't through the prism of some media or another - I just don't engage with them. I read mostly primary sources to get my news, I don't need it filtered through the heads of some journalists.
That is not true.
If a religious person can live their lives according to their religious beliefs while not oppressing/coercing another, and they can, then how does that amount to being defeated and/or humiliated?
As I read through the above, I know that much of what is said about 'the atheist' quite simply isn't true.
Aside from that, it seems that this is skirting around something far more fundamental. The effects/affects that one's own thought/belief(worldview) has upon how s/he navigates the world.
Regarding your repeated concerns about abortion...
That argument was made long ago. No matter where you place it on a moral scale, if you value freedom, liberty, self-direction, the pursuit of one's own happiness, and you abhor coercion and/or oppression of these freedoms, then you must consider who has the right and/or authority to tell a woman what to do with her own body...
I say the woman, and in my saying that I honor both views, whereas if one opposes abortion, s/he is not honoring both views. Rather, s/he is forcing their own religious beliefs onto another.
As I said, I used those classifications symbolically.
Quoting creativesoul
No, I don't value this.
Quoting creativesoul
Yes, I think these are quite important.
Quoting creativesoul
On my property and using my tools and my money? I do.
Quoting creativesoul
I oppose abortion, and any woman interested to have it is free to have it with whoever agrees to it, but the government has no right to take my money and use it to fund abortions. Nor, if I am a doctor, does the government have any right to force me to give abortions to women if I don't want to. Both those would infringe my liberty and would be unacceptable.
So you don't think that abortion should be illegal, or that it's not killing a being with a soul or whatever?
At minimum no one should be forced to pay for it or perform it.
Quoting praxis
It is killing a being with a soul.
Are you opposed to government subsidized healthcare for those less fortunate?
Depends what "healthcare" means. Abortion isn't healthcare, unless the woman's life is threatened.
Define healthcare.
If such people are in power, then they are making a woman have a child from an otherwise unwanted pregnancy, and refusing to provide public assistance for those women, many many of whom would have chosen to terminate the pregnancy largely due to financial reasons(including the quality of life that they want their child to have).
So, if those opposed are placing the unborn child's interests into the forefront as the reason for opposing abortion, and deny public assistance(what's necessary to ensure the child has the best life possible), then they are - in essence - creating a situation which is not in the child's best interest.
Where's the rational moral standard in all this?
These are not mutually exclusive. Is your point that we need not protect freedom of choice where possible? That is, is it your view that while all are free to choose, some are also free to coerce?
I'm not pretending that the injunction leads to simple solutions. But such difficulties do not make the injunction wrong.
Thanks for introducing abortion; it guarantees that this thread will get over the 100 pages.
As long as all our priorities are in order...
That explains why you're so uninformed and opinionated. You never quote or refer to any sources whatever. I suspect your 'primary sources' are nothing more than your feelings and projections with no regards for facts. This is why I think that you have actually become unknowingly implanted with Internet memes ('Lying Hillary'), which you repeat ad nauseam with no justification or reference. You've become a bot ;-)
Yeah, kinda like you wielding power over the unborn child that will be cut out of a vagina like goop in a potpie.
Quoting creativesoul
Common among whom, exactly?
Quoting creativesoul
If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, then that woman should not be having unprotected sex, sex that she, and her partner, knows comes with the risk of conception. Drink twelve beers at the bar, go out driving, crash into someone else, kill them, and you have something called manslaughter. Fuck your buddy, get pregnant, and in this bizarre, modern world such a woman is rewarded with a get-out-of-jail-free-card paid for by her fellow citizens. If murdering an unborn child was practically, and morally, equivalent to funding infrastructure, police and firefighters, etc. then abortion wouldn't be as big of an issue as it is.
Quoting creativesoul
Perhaps because the state should hold no responsibility over funding and "fixing" its citizens' mistakes unless otherwise dire.
Quoting creativesoul
Yes, yes, these poor, poor women who have enough money to either have health insurance or to pay out of pocket for an abortion but not enough money to get proper birth control in the first place. Please, just give me a break with this tired rhetoric.
Quoting creativesoul
I'm surprised you've stuck with this as most loons who defend abortion have recently fought tooth and nail (lol...) in trying to argue that the "child" that is murdered in an abortion isn't actually a child, nor is it human, being only human once it's born. That sentiment is already shocking, disturbing, and sick, but to see you deny that and seemingly confirm the humanness of the unborn child to be murdered in the whom as being A-OK is just as shocking, truly.
Quoting creativesoul
A strawman for any pro-lifer who does support a functioning and efficient state with welfare services.
It's really hilarious that you try and make pro-lifers the monsters by lumping them all in the anti-welfare camp, as if trying to pull the wool over our eyes that you are the one in favor of the murdering of unborn children. Ridiculous.
Quoting creativesoul
I've no idea, I'm still waiting on any rational moral standard from you.
Amazing.
No, not necessarily.
Quoting creativesoul
It's not "many many many" who have it out of economic reasons. About 30% according to some statistics I've read. About 2-5% are the rape/incest cases. The rest are for other reasons such as "not ready to have a child" (then why the hell are you having unprotected sex? You're ready for sex but not for a child?!), "child will not allow me to have a career", etc.
Well yes if she wants to have that abortion with my money, I think I have full rights to tell her what to do with her body. Also, she shouldn't be able to force a doctor to give her an abortion. That would be to tell the doctor what to do with his medical skills, which is wrong.
None are free to coerce.
Quoting praxis
Am I responsible for her stupidity? No. She should pay for it. But if she really can't, then I'm not opposed to help her.
:s - I haven't become unknowingly implanted with internet memes - Lying Hillary isn't an internet meme, Donald Trump said it at his rallies. If you stopped reading only the New York Times summary of the rallies, and actually watched them, you may have known this.
But of course, it's easier to give a quick look at secondary sources and then take that for the truth, just because some reporters say it. Do the hard work, and go back to primary sources yourself.
I rest my case.
So you agree that we ought protect the freedom to choose?
Just because the US democratic system doesn't work, doesn't mean democracy doesn't work. It's interesting how you insist on social conservatism and then disparage democracy totally. In my experience (local) democracy is almost the only method to ensure social cooperation at the local level. E.g. that it's not only the liberal "atoms" with their individual rights. But we are individuals and we do live in a society and we're having a hard time reconciling the two at a national level. To me, the abortion issue is ultimately a decision of the woman, because it's her body and her life that is most deeply affected. So if I'm going to write a law on this, I'll make sure the woman cannot be forced to keep the baby if she doesn't want to. Ethically, everybody involved should have a good long and hard think about what to do before any decision is made but I can't make that law.
Also, a lot of socialist thinkers have the same critique of liberalism as you do.
Since this is about Trump; from where I'm standing (in the Netherlands) he looks completely ineffectual. He's irritated and annoyed so many people everywhere, he won't be able to get anything done. Inept.
Freedom of choice is a fact of human nature. Some freedoms you ought to protect and others you ought to discourage. For example, you ought not to protect the freedom to choose murder. But yes, in general we ought to protect the freedom to choose so long as that freedom to choose doesn't negatively impact others.
"Who are you to tell me what I do with my body?"
If I understand you correctly, I agree, but that is not an institutionalised form of democracy, but rather pure cooperation arising naturally between the members of one community.
Quoting Benkei
Precisely, democracy fails as a system, it's a bad political system.
Quoting Benkei
I can agree with this, so long as you'll agree not to force any doctors to give her an abortion if they don't want to, nor to force me as the taxpayer to finance her abortion. These things should arise naturally in the community. If her community doesn't approve of abortions, such that she cannot find a doctor willing to perform it, then she should take this into consideration in her behavior. The government should not force people to perform these services.
Quoting Benkei
Well I think the baby's life is most deeply affected by her decision, but the problem arises precisely because the baby is not in a capacity to speak or make decisions that is the problem.
Quoting Benkei
But is being on friendly terms with others what is required to get things done? I dare say that at the highest levels of politics, most people there can be manipulated based on their own selfish desires and greed, such that even if they don't like you, you can get them to do what you want so long as you dangle the carrot.
Woman or not, a terrorist is still a terrorist.
SO the principle behind liberalism, that one ought not force the choices of another, is acceptable to you.
Then am I right in thinking that for you it is the application of that principle that causes grief; that in practice coercion of one sort or another is inevitable?
Regarding who has the right to determine what a woman does with her own body, you wrote...
Interesting. I'm guessing that by "my money" you're referring to your personal taxes.
Is that right?
Being on friendly terms to get things done is not a prerequisite, but its reverse, not being on bad terms with everyone is.
I think the system in the US invites that moneyd interest are better represented than others and as a result the system doesn't lead to fair and just results. This is a problem in most modern democracies to some extent but not an issue of democracy per se. I don't think it's a character flaw but a systemic one and those that "play" the game best will float to the top. So you have a system that rewards cronyism and nepotism but can you blame people for playing in accordance with the rules?
Quoting Agustino
But that's not the conclusion I would reach. I said we have trouble with it but then it's an imperfect world and I'm not expecting perfect solutions. It's a constant (and should be a constant) debate where the balance between our obligations to society and our personal freedom is. For instance, one of the most important discussions to be had, politically speaking, is about positive and negative freedom. The US has a very strong emphasis on negative freedom; e.g. non-interference from the State (and others) in people's choices. I think it misses an important point that some people simply don't have choices; dead-poor people don't choose to starve. So what about the State's role to create opportunities for its members? We consider it natural that within the family unit we create opportunities for each other to flourish, friends too, maybe our neighbours but it pretty much ends there. It's pretty much normal to take care of each other at that level. Not so much at the state or national level, which is why we have so much trouble working together. One side is racist, the other are pansy leftists, one side are immoral conservatives, the other immoral progressives.
Now, if I look within my own family my brother is a bit of a xenophobe bordering on racist, my mum is conservative on cultural matters and I'm a pansy leftist progressive. We still get along and take care of each other because they're not only the failings I mentioned (and I'm not just the failings they might see either).
So democracy is complicated by abstraction away from natural relationships. You can compensate for that but it requires less elected positions and instead appointees from society (much like jury duty).
No, not quite. One ought not to coerce someone to take a particular choice by physical force or the like. But this isn't to say there can't be pressure one way or another, or that a particular choice can't be made difficult by society.
Quoting Banno
I don't think coercion is inevitable. It wouldn't be inevitable if everyone wasn't selfish and adhered by the principle of not doing anything that would harm others. But many people don't - hence coercion becomes inevitable.
Quoting creativesoul
Yes.
Or is it that there is no clear way to settle such issues?
No, of course not, why would I be? :s
Quoting Banno
I don't understand this example. No, I wouldn't be in favor of legally forcing people to avoid pork, but I wouldn't have a problem with a community deciding that they don't eat pork and hence nobody selling pork there.
No, doctors shouldn't be forced to perform the operation. What should be seen is that there is no discrimination - in other words that if a particular doctor doesn't perform the operation, then he or she doesn't do it on anyone.
Furthermore, the ulcer thing is very different than an abortion, since nobody is harmed when removing an ulcer, but a life is destroyed in an abortion.
Oh, sure. Consistency is important.
But if a doctor were willing to perform the operation on the ulcer, under what circumstances should the operation be allowed to go ahead? Only if no one object? If a majority of the community do not object? Only if the family of the patient do not object?
Who has a say?
If the doctor and the patient are willing that is sufficient. Same for abortion. But the doctor shouldn't be forced by the community to give abortions when requested of him. That would be minimal requests to say the least.
So what stands is that people are entitled to decide what happens to their own body, against the objections of others.
Another example: homosexuality is fine for consenting adults.
Morally it's not fine, but they're free to do it. However, if you want to speak about homosexual marriage, now that would be a problem since religious institutions cannot be forced to marry homosexual people.
So the UK law regarding gay marriage is fine? The Church of England is forbidden from performing same-sex marriage and all other religious institutions must opt-in of their own accord.
I have no idea what the UK law is.
So they ought not be coerced to abstain from sexual intercourse, if they so choose?
I just explained it?
Well, to begin with, it's not even feasible to coerce them to abstain from sexual intercourse... how would that even be achieved?
And no, they shouldn't be coerced, of course not. How would they even be doing something moral if they were coerced to do it? A coerced moral action becomes amoral.
Quoting Michael
Well presumably the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church would also not perform same-sex marriages. Other institutions should be free to make whatever decision they want.
They're free to opt-in. Only the Church of England is forbidden.
Religious institutions, yes. Non-religious register offices, no.
Yep, but they wouldn't.
Yes, that should be prevented by law.
If it harms another, it's not allowable. Even abortion should perhaps not be allowable for this reason, but at minimum physicians shouldn't be forced to perform it if they have a problem with it, nor should taxpayers be forced to finance it.
No, it shouldn't be legally banned.
Quoting Banno
Same answer.
It's not one's freedom anymore, simple.
My judgement. Do I need to accept democracy to accept the possibility of correct judgment? :s
The fact that the "majority" agrees or disagrees doesn't make something right.
So, your argument against women having an abortion paid for by public assistance, is that it's your money, and since you are against abortions then your tax dollars ought not be used to fund abortions?
Is that right?
No, democracy is needed to accomodate differences of opinion. If you say that differences of opinion don't count, or that only your own opinion is correct, then again you're advocating authoritarianism.
Are you Catholic? If not, replace "Catholic" with whatever is the appropriate term:
What if the Catholic church approves of gay marriage at some point in time? How does that affect the morality of same sex marriage?
But this is what I want to question. I imagine at that stage, material gain is more important in the eyes of all actors there, such that if X or Y hates you, but they can gain out of allying with you, they'd typically do it. In other words, they'd act on their rational self-interest, and not based on feelings.
Quoting Benkei
I agree.
Quoting Benkei
Well precisely because it is a systematic flaw that is the reason why I'd say it's a problem with democracy itself. Democracy itself, over time, leads to this result. It naturally decays.
Quoting Benkei
I agree, all forms of government have a tendency to decay, but I want to argue that this tendency is very strong in a democracy. In other words, a democracy is the most likely regime to devolve into an oligarchy or even tyranny.
Indeed, but the question here would revolve around how it is best to help dead-poor people. Should the government do it through its institutions, or should this be something that the local community does by itself? As an entrepreneur, for example, I can look towards starting a business that employs poor people, maybe even beggars. I can start - say - a fast food, or a restaurant where the staff is beggars and poor people only. But these social businesses are very rare. It's not only because it's difficult to turn a profit with, it's also because it's inconvenient.
Right, so I think this is the problem. We don't have any larger ambitions, we've lost the drive to play a significant role in other people's lives and be a central element in our community. Nobody - or very few people - strive for this today. Democracy teaches you to seek to be the "average consumer". Anything else is seen as arrogance, an inflated sense of one's self, and so on so forth. Other people don't look nicely towards it.
Yes, I agree with this too. I too am the black sheep in my family lol. And I think this is a core problem with democracy - that it abstracts away - through the state's institutions - from natural relationships. It's no longer my duty to keep the street clean. The state has to do it. It's no longer my duty to do something for the poor people in my community. The state must do it. The state becomes like a giant father figure that we cling to psychologically in order to avoid taking responsibility for our society. It's a way of hiding from ourselves and maintaining our pretence to morality. It's easier to cast a vote afterall, than to actually do something yourself or get other people interested to do something.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Oh dear Tiff, you posted Benkei's question regarding my membership to the Catholic church on the FB page? :P >:O
Quoting Benkei
No, I'm a member of the Greek Orthodox Church.
Quoting Benkei
It really would be effectively impossible for the Catholic church - or the Orthodox church - to approve of gay marriage. I could see the possibility for allowing civil partnerships which are legally recognised as being identical to marriage, but obviously not religiously recognised.
The reasons for this are multiple. First, marriage entails sex, and homosexual intercourse is condemned as immoral by Ecumenic councils and the Bible itself (Leviticus for example). Second, marriage entails a spiritual union between two people such that they become one flesh. This also doesn't work out in terms of metaphysics when it comes to homosexuality.
But, to answer your question more directly, if by absurd, the Church changed its position on gay marriage, then the morality or immorality of same sex marriage would be unaffected. Since the Church doesn't get to decide that in the first place. If there's anything to it, it's a fact of nature, given by our nature (both physical and spiritual) itself. I personally would probably remain a member of the Church if that happened, but I wouldn't share the Church's position on that issue.
Specifically what I don't understand is whether or not you believe morality is as the Christian God created it and as is revealed through (which bible do you prefer?). I know you subscribe to a "telos/human nature" based argument that more or less states "according to our objective nature, humans must behave in X manner to be moral/fulfilled/(happy?)/etc...", but do you maintain that you can discover this without appealing to god in any way? In other words, does your moral reasoning support your acceptance of the Christian god or does your acceptance of the Christian god support your moral reasoning? (you could say both, but we can ignore the circularity of this response; I need to know the answer to the latter question).
So in a non-democratic system of government, how to people get involved in social change or policy development or whatever? How do you 'take responsibility' for urban infrastructure, like roads, bridges, railways, or for hospitals and schools? By individual effort?
I agree that in practice many democratic societies may be corrupted in some ways, or that liberties may be infringed by the state. But provided there is 'a state', or some kind of body corporate, what would provide for more 'individual empowerment' than democratic systems? How would reverting to a 'constitutional monarchy' actually enhance individual freedom, or help individuals take responsibility for what's around them?
Put another way - what non-democratic societies do a better job of solving such problems? Are there any examples?
People never get involved in policy development in a democracy. And if we had a king, that wouldn't stop me from opening a hospital.
Quoting Wayfarer
By asking the king (and his administration) publicly for support in whatever projects you have planned.
Quoting Wayfarer
Monarchy. The monarch wouldn't say something today, and tomorrow change his mind.
Quoting Wayfarer
Depends what you mean by individual freedom. But mostly it would enhance individual freedom by creating a stable and unchanging set of rules and playing field, while providing long term plans which you can take into account when structuring your life. The other bit is by non-interference - a king will not meddle for the sake of meddling, while a politician always does that.
Quoting Wayfarer
We've already gone over this.
Yes, but this isn't to say that it cannot be discovered naturally.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I came to my moral views before I became a Christian, and actually my morality played a strong role in my conversion. I first discovered those moral views, and only later did I accept the Christian framework.
Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven - Matthew 16:19
That was addressed to Jesus' direct disciples who were responsible for setting up, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, Christ's Church. The Church - and I'm referring here to both Orthodox and Catholic churches - has guarded the faith through the ages.
You mean Elvis? What did he know about road building?
Nope. Just this part
[quote=Benkei]What if the Catholic church approves of gay marriage at some point in time? How does that affect the morality of same sex marriage?[/quote]
No, I think he meant B.B. King and well he knows how to have people like Eric Clapton, who some call God, ride with him ON the road.
The people tend to do better in democracies.
That, of course, ignores the fact that a leader is temporary in a democracy, but permanent in a monarchy. This means that the monarchical leader necessarily MUST take a longer view of things. It's not sufficient to keep just those close to him happy and satisfied, the people also must be kept happy and satisfied, or otherwise there will be a revolution and the king taken down. And guess who will be leading that revolution? Those close to him! In a monarchy everyone around the monarch is waiting hungrily for the right moment to grab power - but for that they need legitimacy, which does come from the people.
In democracies, the winner tends to be the one who best deceives the stupid majority and promises them some quick gain, because he won't pay for not delivering, the future leader after him will pay.
A winning coalition member in an autocracy is going to lead a revolution to claim wealth and power? They already have that. Revolutions are messy and destructive. To throw the dice like that they'd have to be rather desperate. They would also need control of the military.
Quoting Agustino
Trump deceived the stupid minority, but yeah, if we're lucky there will be enough of a democracy left for the next administration to clean up.
An example: one's freedom of religious expression ceases when it harms another; by restricting their marital status, or preventing having a blastocyst removed?
I would agree to that.
No religions cannot be obliged to recognise gay marriage for example. Indeed, that would be to harm religious believers and to restrict their freedom. Now gay people can surely set up their own "weddings" in gay communities, officiated by whoever they want to, but they cannot force a priest to officiate their ceremonies.
Quoting Banno
Nope, having a blastocyst inside of you is not a harm. You don't get to decide what is a harm and what isn't a harm. These things are factual.
Hi there Agustino. I am assuming your would agree that, like speech (help! in a crowded fire) even religions have a legally binding limits to their freedoms in non-theocratic states like the USA.
Outside of self defense, for example, a religion has no legal standing in the USA to physically harm an LGBT person, for example. I think it's less clear to what extent a religious person or organization would be legally restricted from psychologically harming them, though I'd imagine there are definite limits there too.
I think it's practically impossible to legislate belief though, so I'd agree with you there. It would be pretty hard to legislate against a belief that, for example, it is morally permissible to harm or kill an LGBT person or any person who does not subscribe to your religious faith. You can only legislate against speech that criminalizes such an exhortation to my violence and, of course, the violent acts themselves.
Does that sound about right to you?
So presumably if asked to participate in a vote on whether homosexuals ought have the right to marry, you would say "yes".
I'm wondering how you would vote in a survey, such as is taking place in Australia; or the vote in Ireland.
SO you would not object to it being removed.
Yes, I would object to forcing a doctor to remove it. If it is against the moral values of the doctor, the doctor shouldn't be forced to do it.
Quoting Banno
Nope.
And if the doctor had no issues with the removal, that would be fine?
Sure.
Morally speaking no, because he would be harming a human being. But if there are people around the world who want to live in such barbaric societies, who can stop them?
In a civilised society, most doctors would refuse to perform abortion services.
As far as I'm concerned rights do not exist. Talking about a "right to marry" is nonsense. There's no such right for anyone. If a priest refuses me to marry the woman I love, then he hasn't wronged me, because I don't have a "right to marry" in the first place. I will go look for another priest. But what I will not do is violently protest like a snowflake liberal about how oppressed I am...
So a religious (or nonreligious) person doesn't have the right to freedom of expression? And a foetus doesn't have the right to live?
It's not a question of rights, it's a question of what's legally and morally permissible. It's not morally or legally permissible to use force to stop someone's expression. But there's no "rights" in there. Rights are fictions.
I think that quite absurd.
and your point here is, as I understand you, that there is no way to reconcile our two positions?
What's the difference between saying that it is morally (or legally) impermissible for me to restrict your freedom of expression and saying that you have a right to freedom of expression? Seems like much the same thing to me.
In what sense is there no way to reconcile the two positions?
Quoting Banno
Absolutely, just like an egg that has started to develop is a chicken.
Quoting Michael
Saying that I have a right gives the impression that I am entitled to it. But I'm not entitled to anything. In this day and age all the leftists and liberals behave as if they're entitled to everything. That's outrageous.
So you're not entitled to freedom of expression but it's wrong for me to restrict your freedom? Again, I fail to see the difference.
Yes that's exactly right. The difference between the two is that one case speaks of what's moral and immoral without making me entitled to something, while the other says that I'm entitled to have you behave morally to me, which is false. You should behave morally to me, but I'm not entitled to it.
The reason I'm asking this @Banno is because I want to know if you're talking legally reconciled? Morally? Or in what manner.
Then what is this below? :s
Quoting Agustino
That's redundant. It's like saying that it's a crime to break the law.
No it's not. It's to say that I must behave morally to you, which is false. I should behave morally to you, but that's not a MUST (or an entitlement).
Well, that's what I understood you to be claiming. If I am wrong, let me know.
We appear to broadly agree on our moral framework. Where we differ is that what you claim is a human being is what I say is a bunch of cells.
The difference is not moral, but about what counts as a human.
Is it possible to reach some sort of agreement?
That view is wide open to debate. I had a fried egg for breakfast, not a fried chicken.
Anything that is in the process of developing into a fully grown human being if there is no external interference (blastocyst, baby, child, teenager, etc.), and any person who is actually an adult or old woman/man.
Quoting Banno
Linguistics. Yes, we linguistically distinguish between different stages of what a chicken is, but fact of the matter is that the egg is a necessary part of the life stages of a chicken. Why do we distinguish linguistically? Oh well, because, for one, you can do different things with an egg than you can with a fully grown chicken. But this isn't to say they're not both two different stages of the same life.
Should we go into this? Your definition is dreadful.
With no external interference the blastocyst will die. It is parasitic on the woman.
I had a fried egg, not a fried chicken.
:s - that's not external intervention. It happens naturally. If the woman goes on living and eating naturally, the blastocyst develops.
Quoting Banno
Yep so?
:s There's no philosophical yoga. It's an absolutely natural position. You need philosophical yoga to assert that a blastocyst - if left alone - doesn't develop into a fully grown human being. Now everyone understands what left alone means. It means you don't purposefully interfere with its development. And now you claim that it is parasitic on the woman's body - so what? If left alone, will it develop in a fully grown human being? Yes! A blastocyst is a necessary stage in the lifecycle of a human being.
With regards to the chicken and the egg, you can state whatever the hell you want regarding eating a fried egg, not a fried chicken, that doesn't change the underlying reality. The word "egg" refers to a stage in the lifecycle of a chicken (general term here to denote a particular form of life with all its stages). The word "chicken" (particular sense here) refers to a specific stage in the lifecycle of a chicken. Now you prefer to remain trapped in linguistics and give me a lecture about how we use language, but I'm not interested. I already explained why we use language that way, and why using language that way doesn't take away from the fact that the egg and the chicken are both different stages of the same life.
Morally speaking it seems like no, because it appears you don't respect human life, because you have no respect for some necessary stages of that life.
Legally speaking, we may reach some sort of agreement.
This made me laugh.
I don't think anyone is seeking to physically coerce them. Changing the law isn't physically coercing them.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/women-avoid-prolife-protesters-for-the-first-time-in-decades-20160502-gok1gl.html
No, I don't think I'd be fine with that. 150-m away from abortion providers is a public space, so people there should be able to say whatever they want. You don't have a right for others not to look down on you for your behaviour, whether that is having an abortion or having a gay marriage. People should be free to judge you if they so want. You cannot dictate what they are to think about you.
I asked
Quoting Banno
You replied
Quoting Agustino
I gave an example of such coercion. You re-described it as "look(ing) down on you for your behaviour".
They are. They just cannot do it in front of the clinic, since that is seen as coercion.
Well, it's a bit better than "featherless biped".
No I'm not.
Quoting Banno
:s That's not coercion! How is me saying something to you coercing you? Coercion means physically restraining them from getting to the abortion clinic.
Quoting Banno
Yes, it's wrongly seen as a form of coercion.
Not according to my understanding.
But the wider point is that apparently you think one can say anything?
Yes, absolutely, so long as what is being said doesn't include threats of physical violence, terrorist propaganda, and such things.
No, they wouldn't, but they would be unacceptable because of the consequences that they can give rise to.
So Mill's "the moral coercion of public opinion" is a misuse of the term?
Yes, I would certainly say so. Communities of people are allowed to express their opinions freely.
And unlikely to recover as it's been somewhat cannibalized by dclements' thread, which discusses the similarities between Trump and Bilbo Baggins.
So if one says a blastocyst is not a human being, one is equivocating?
He is questioning the GOP's basic presumptions such as there has to be a debt ceiling, following his own logic, not listening to what his advisers have to say. I think for him it's more a question of 'let's make a deal' , and he has been stymied at each point by the rather stark polarization between the GOP and the DEMs. Being able to agree with DEMs on certain critical issues means he can get legislation passed, because the GOP are trained from birth O:) to follow the leader.
The GOP will have to get used to this alternative fact.
That may turn out to be true...
Well, no. To develop into a fully grown human being - a person - the blastocyst will need considerable support.
Time is on my side.
But I might give time a hand by pointing out that while a blastociste is a normal part of the human lifecycle, it is not a person.
And it is grossly immoral to consider the needs of a bunch of cells over those of a person such as the pregnant woman.
See if that helps.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-in-the-crucible/536256/
Quoting Banno
I take it you mean "immoral"?
(Does that help?)
Fixed my error. Thanks.
Source
Another story du jour - Trump trusts Putin more than the US intelligence community.
(Trumpets - don't bother.)
"What I have done – and this is unprecedented, by the way, no administration has done this before – is I’ve said to each agency, 'Don't just look at current regulations – or don't just look at future regulations, regulations that we’re proposing. Let’s go backwards and look at regulations that are already on the books, and if they don't make sense, let’s get rid of them.'"
What's supposed to be the difference between "current regulations" and "regulations that are already on the books"?
Anyway, more taxes bad / regulations bad / oversight bad binary thinking.
Oh they don't.
Anything that Washington Post post is fake news for the true Trumpists. Any Wapo article can be immediately dismissed.
Trump believers are totally in their own phantasy-World from where there is no turning back. Yet in the real World, it's going to be a really fascinating what Mueller will find out and how the Russia scandal will evolve.
I don't see how post-truth simply applies to that of perceptual pathos however. Post-truth should be technically evaluated in the same sense as something along the lines of "post-structural" or "post political." This is to say that their is not a shift in how the mass public constitutes value within truth itself, but the boundaries by which truth is defined. Therein, post-truth is not a deviance in objective fact, but a reevaluation of these facts and how they are defined, especially in a linguistic sense.
I would say that the objective truth you seem to find infallible is up to the specific context by which this truth is meddled. It is not a question of the post-truther, but of the truth which, for some advent reason, has become "post-." An experiment in the propaganda of this truth may be best for a holistic evaluation, but where from?
But perhaps this is the jargon of the post-truth. Post-truthers! They are everywhere!
Well, here's a zombie thread that I will re-animate.
I started it after Trump was elected. The take home is:
Quoting Banno
And there we have it.