There is a good deal of information here on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 — I like sushi

Good video. This article in Foreign Policy from a few days ago makes the same points:

Liberal Illusions Caused the Ukraine Crisis

It seems the most reasonable assessment, and this is from American academics. It goes back to what I was saying over a year ago here, that there's a basic disconnect between the (ostensibly, at least) ideologically-driven American foreign policy and the Russian realpolitik.

I can't find it in the change log. When did you post it? Was it a discussion thread opening post, or a post in someone else's discussion? If the latter, which one?

I can see a couple of your posts about free will here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10364/libets-experiment-and-its-irrelevance-to-free-will/p2

:up:

I'm always totally willing to pretend to listen to the masses.

Sorry Tiff, I don't get it. Sponsoring people? Betting?

Well unless someone can make a case for a subscriber-only area, I don't think it'll happen.

The "Swear Thread" is what made me become a Sponsor and then I made donations as I lost bets to Hanover — ArguingWAristotleTiff

This isn't helping your case. :grin:

We already have social areas, and we're not desperate for a new fundraising solution, so I guess I don't really see the point. What is it that makes you want to see the return of the Green Room? You haven't really made a case for it.

Ah, green as in dollars? Finally it makes sense.

I guess you mean a subscriber-only section of the forum. Well, it's an idea. Not sure about it.

Thanks to our several generous members, subscriptions usually cover the cost all right, and when they don't it's like you say: I channel my porn funds in this direction (it's good clean healthy porn btw).

I don't know what a Green Room is in this context, or how it would help raise funds. I remember seeing one on the old site but I didn't know what it was.

Yes, one of my favourites too. I don't mind that he's different from Chandler's Marlowe.

Kind of feels like lots of people fear the big questions. They have trouble as we all do with the humdrum stuff so thinking about our significance as a people is just too much to think about. — TiredThinker

In my experience, most people who address the big questions are bores. Much more interesting and original are those who take up a unique stance on "the humdrum stuff".

I only know one other book of his, Michaelmas, which I also loved — Srap Tasmaner

I read and enjoyed Budrys's Who? after being haunted since childhood by the memory of the film adaptation starring Elliot Gould.

You should enter the web address of the image, not the page. In Chrome you can right-click on the image, and "Copy image address".

Ubik, no. That's one of his maddest isn't it?

My relationship with Dick is ... complicated. I think highly of Castle and Sheep, but after trying some others I just got fed up with the bad writing. He wrote in a hurry and it shows. I know, I know, we should read him for the imagination, the ideas, and so on. I'll probably come back to him one day.

I like weird too, so maybe it's the forgetfulness after all.

Same question to you both. Any thoughts? — Noble Dust

No thoughts from me, as I can't even remember it. How much that's forgettableness, and how much forgetfulness, I'm not sure.

Roadside Picnic - Arkady and Boris Strugatsky — Baden

What did you think? I thought I was a fan of theirs but since I read this and Hard to be a God a few years ago, I've forgotten everything about them. Could be the problem was me, I don't know.

Recently and currently:

Piranesi, Susanna Clarke
The Long Goodbye, Raymond Chandler
The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, Michael Chabon

:cool: :up:

So far, I've listened to 3 of the 40 chapters — Amity

Don't worry, the plot will get going in a couple of chapters. :lol:

Seriously though, I never even found it slow when I was reading it. Just totally absorbing.

One of the most interesting new albums I've heard recently. — Noble Dust

I like that.

Wonderful, bleak, lovely, tedious, beautiful, unrelenting

Six stars. Eleven stars. 432 stars. Tedious and bleak and beautiful. Funny and moving. Wonderfully written and very, very, very slow. Then suddenly, disorientingly sensual. Gormenghast the castle – miles long; dank, moldy, full of hundreds or thousands of unused rooms packed with useless and peculiar things. A tower where the death owls live. A giant dead tree with painted roots growing out the side of the castle. Lives ruled by inflexible, all-encompassing, oppressive, and unrelenting tradition. Gormenghast the land – always raining, too hot or too cold. Gormenghast the mountain – the peak always hidden by clouds.

The people - Lord Sepulchrave, 76th Earl of Groan, Countess Gertrude, the wonderful, pitiful twins Ladies Cora and Clarice Groan, Mr. Flay, Dr. and Irma Prunesquallor, Swelter, Nannie Slagg, Sourdust, Barquentine, Keda, Rottcodd, Pentecost, The Poet. The Grey Scrubbers. The Mud Dwellers who live outside the castle and spend all their time making beautiful carvings, most of which will be burned. The best of which will be placed in a museum that no one visits. And stuborn, 15-year-old, clumsy, and maybe doomed Lady Fuchia, whom I love with all my heart. And nasty, scheming, capable, admirable, and maybe evil Steerpike. And 1 1/2 year old Titus – 77th Earl of Groan. Everyone; almost everyone; odd, eccentric, and unhappy.

The plot doesn’t matter – for what it's worth, there is Titus' birth, scheming, betrayal, murder, suicide, a deadly knife fight, bodies eaten by owls, endless ceremonies, drunken revelry, and a toddler standing alone on a raft in the middle of a lake in the rain. The writing, the place, and the people do matter. The words grabbed me by the neck and forced me through the slowest, hardest sections. It felt like the hood of my jacket had gotten caught in a subway door and I was being dragged down the platform. I love this book. — T Clark

I don't want to take this thread off-topic, but I just want to say that this is a beautiful review of one of my favourite books, though I totally disagree with the oft-heard view that the plot doesn't matter.

A belief is an account of the cat's behaviour in intentional terms. — Banno

So if we asked the cat, "do you believe the bowl is empty?", we're asking the cat for its account of its own behaviour in intentional terms, rather than asking it to express something inside (a thought, perception, or attitude)? Is this the same sense of "belief" as when I ask the cat "do you believe in God?"

Hi tricky, and welcome! :smile:

Hi thaumasnot, and welcome to the forum :smile:

The way it works is that members can't send PMs until they've posted 20 times on the forum.

Welcome John27, it's good to have you here.

:lol:

I actually enjoyed seeing your thought process at work; the way you clarified what you meant. — Amity

No problem. I aim to please! :grin:

I had intended to return and pick out some of the key points to further discuss.
Or perhaps simply bullet-point...
To avoid any misrepresentation on my part, perhaps you could gather them up in a summary? — Amity

Unfortunately my mind seems to have moved on to more verdant pastures.

"I was bruised by T Clark's harsh criticisms"

The metaphor is "bruised". Is there more to say? — jamalrob

To be more accurate, the metaphor is the particular use of the word. But we can still say when referring to the sentence, as the unnamed philosopher mentioned in the OP similarly did when referring to some sentences of Heidegger, that "bruised" here is a metaphor.

(Too many consecutive posts; this is what happens when you don't think things through)

Of course, there are deeper and more interesting levels of metaphor, as pointed out by @Amity earlier:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/633114

"I was bruised by @T Clark's harsh criticisms"

The metaphor is "bruised". Is there more to say?

So my earlier claim was making the point that the following in the OP...

Recently I heard a philosopher speaking about a certain term Heidegger used as being a 'metaphor" — jancanc

...is not affected by an argument to the effect that a metaphor requires the context of other words, because of course, the term did have such a context.

Analogically, a preposition can be one word even if it takes more than one word to make it a preposition. A preposition on its own is nothing.

This analogy works because prepositions indicate relations, as do metaphors. I'm just making the simple point that in both cases they can consist of a single word.*

* though not, of course, a single word alone (whatever that would mean)

Why doesn't it have any bearing? — T Clark

I shall attempt a clarification. There appears in jancanc's posts to be a conflation of two things: first, a metaphor as a term with no (implied) connection to, or context of, the thing or concept represented; and second, a metaphor as a single word. The OP uncritically takes the latter to entail the former.

When I said that "all that has been established is that a metaphor cannot be a single word without context, which, however, has no bearing on the OP", I was wrong, or at least imprecise. I was just trying to say that Heidegger's use of a metaphor (if that's what it is) doesn't require that he use more than one word. Or I could say that more than one word is always required to produce the metaphoricality of a metaphor, because a word spoken or written without context cannot be metaphorical. Such a contextless word is likely meaningless anyway. But the requirement for contextual words does not negate the claim that the metaphor itself is a metaphor, whether it's one word or a few.

So it's established that metaphor cannot be a single word. Great. What now? — emancipate

As far as I can tell, all that has been established is that a metaphor cannot be a single word without context, which, however, has no bearing on the OP.

:cool: — 180 Proof

I think I've had Molloy on my reading list since I noticed you saying something about it years ago, either here or on the old forum. So, thanks. :cool:

(Now the pointlessness and stupidity of my existence is confirmed beyond doubt :wink:)

Just read and currently reading, with detailed emoji reviews.

Italo Calvino, Invisible Cities :up: :starstruck: :sparkle:
Joris-Karl Huysmans, Against Nature :up: :down: :yawn:
Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness :up: :down: :yawn:
Nikolai Gogol, Petersburg Tales :up: :lol: :love:
Samuel Beckett, Molloy :up: :100: :death: :rofl: :sparkle: :love:

He's up on what I call the Wyoming Steppe, land of horizontal snow. Bison (now cattle, in the summer) country. They have a nice ranch but treat the little bastards like queens in a barn; letting them out when the weather is nice. I thought they would grow better wool if left outside in the winter, but I don't know shit about them so I keep my mouth shut. They do have to worry about predators, though. So they have big white dogs and some Llamas. — James Riley

Very evocative. :cool:

I hope they're as warm as my camel socks. Softer, probably. Where in the US does your friend keep those 135 alpacas?

It's not just socks. Apparently these Russian alpacas are good for weddings too:

Alpacas at a wedding create a fabulous atmosphere, emphasize the individuality of the event and simply have a positive effect on the psyche. — Alpaca House

https://www.instagram.com/p/CQGi9Tkl0RO/

This is all off-topic but it's the Lounge and I don't believe in summarizing the year in a nutshell.

No, it is impossible; it is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one’s existence--that which makes its truth, its meaning--its subtle and penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live, as we dream--alone. — Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness