I'd disagree with that. Putin isn't under the thumb of Xi. Just look at how many times the Russians have disappointed Xi with their wars. — ssu

Xi publicly chided him for talking about nuclear engagement. I took that to be a sign that Xi is in charge. No?

First of all, when Putin says that he's at war with NATO, you really shouldn't underestimate this. — ssu

Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell what he's thinking until he actually puts troops on the border. He lies all the time. And at this point he's using North Korean troops. Is he really at a point where he could unilaterally declare war on any European state?

But Descartes' concern was not simply personal. It was to displace the authority of the Church from the mind of the thinking man, — Fooloso4

He wanted the Church to reform, and he thought he could help it do that. He was a wild guy. He travelled around engaging in warfare when he felt like it, he was actively seeking members of esoteric groups (we know he knew one of them, but the connection was never revealed to him.) He was a rich man and a genius. He wasn't under anyone's thumb, and he knew it.

to displace the authority of the Church with the authority of the thinking/reasoning subject. — Fooloso4

He wouldn't have needed to displace the authority of the Church if that was his agenda. He could have just left and gone to live in Protestant territory.

This is a little discussion moderated by the Brookings Institution about EU defense:



It's a long discussion about nothing. I think the EU will pull itself together when and if it needs to. Since Russia is relatively gutted and under the thumb of Xi, I don't think it presents much of a threat right now. As time goes by, I would guess that the EU will work on ties with China and look in their direction for a diplomatic base. Maybe play China and the US off each other.

How else would you say “disunity”? What other word carries similar implication? — Mww

Divided? Although it's more than that. As an idea, the self makes sense relative to its negation: the not-self, whatever that is. The Cogito signifies that I don't just blend into a monolithic universe. I arise out of it as a distinct thing.

….or, we always were, and must necessarily be. — Mww

I agree. The most fundamental duality is unity vs disunity. The Cogito points to the indubitability of the disunity part.

Is there an answer that doesn’t just invite another question?

Comprehension needs to be bestowed on something representing a particular accomplishment, iff one wishes to express himself in regard to it. The cognitive system, in and of itself, in its normal modus operandi, doesn’t require it, insofar as it just IS it. — Mww

Right, there's experience, which is seamless, and then when we reflect on it, and go to say something about it, we automatically become dualists of some kind. To talk about it, we need to pull it apart:

experience -- the one doing the experiencing.

Does it just have to do with talking about it? Or maybe it's just the way consciousness turns back on itself, whatever you call that.

but moreso that upon which the comprehension is bestowed. — Mww

Why does the comprehension have to bestowed upon something? I'm not so much arguing with Descartes, just asking the general question.

That consciousness of mine that proves that I am, insofar as its negation is a contradiction, says nothing at all about what I am. — Mww

So there are thoughts and feelings, sights and sounds, etc. Why does there have to be a seat of consciousness? Why does there have to be an observer for the observed? A thinker for the thought?

:up:

Of course, subsidies don't help much when the company supplying and maintaining your solar panels goes broke. — Agree-to-Disagree

True. And the government shouldn't interfere in a case where the company was mismanaged, or just not suited to its intended market.

My state subsidizes roof solar panels, so basically all tax payers contribute to make solar energy available. Doesn't New Zealand do that?

That being said I don't think Trump would care about that. — Mr Bee

I think this is probably coming from his VP.

They'll still be hurt regardless. Whatever will be made in the US will be more expensive and retailers will have to bear that cost or make prices higher. So even in the case where tariffs will bring back US jobs the inflationary effects will be permanent. — Mr Bee

North American free trade undermines the position of US labor. It gives the US a more flexible labor force by putting it in competition with Mexicans who have a lower cost of living. That issue was raised during the Clinton years when NAFTA was initiated, but the establishment promised that over all, free trade would help Americans. That hasn't turned out to be true. The only people who really don't want a return to the way things were pre-NAFTA are certain Wall St. entities. If Trump did succeed in returning the US to a pre-1990s trade position, it would be the first step in the recreation of American labor unions. It would mean demands for a better social safety net would have power behind them.

I don't like Trump, mainly because I don't want to hear his mouth, but on this issue, he's actually lining up with exactly what he said he wanted to do back in 2016: shore up the position of American labor.

The timeframe that's been thrown around is a decade. You can't just simply rebuild entire supply chains in a couple of years, one with the connections and an experienced workforce, especially if a good chunk of that workforce is gonna be deported. — Mr Bee

I guess it depends on what commodity we're talking about. I think the main thing we get from Mexico is agricultural products. What kind of supply chain were you thinking of?

But if you think Trump should impose these massive tariffs permanently and that the economy and prices would somehow work itself out before the midterms or the next presidential election, that's fine by me — Mr Bee

I mean, inflation is coming down. The Fed is set to decrease rates again next year. When I say I think the tariffs will be permanent, I mean that it won't be possible to form a coalition to get rid of them again. As for Europe, I don't think it's even on the American radar at this point. I think we'll be parting ways in terms of fundamentals.

A lot of those businesses rely on imports and they're the ones who have to pay for the tariffs. — Mr Bee

Or it might become reasonable to start making those items at home instead of importing them.

As for manufacturing, it's not clear 25% tariffs will be enough to encourage investment in US production but assuming it is, it'll take at least a decade before those supply chains are built — Mr Bee

I'd say more like two years, but I believe the tariffs will be permanent. Bringing back North American free trade wouldn't be a popular move. It was never popular to begin with.

It should help American businesses.

:cool: :up:

I agree. And that fourth kind is likely to be drawn to philosophy.

Bernard McGinn wrote a good book on Meister Eckhart. I've never seen it spelled Eckhardt.

Yeah. I wasn't gonna say that. Might be time for a check up for some. — Banno

I've found three reactions to mystical experience

1. There's the guy who clearly describes an out of body experience, but is certain it was his brain playing tricks in him.

2. There's the guy who is sure he has the keys to understanding the universe, and won't be dissuaded.

3. There's the person who has always had it, but just lives with it without making many judgements one way or the other.

Trouble is distinguishing what we know from what we just believe. The difference is truth. — Banno

To me, the trouble is distinguishing a mystical state from a possible tumor. I would have to pay out of pocket for an MRI, and I have no noxious symptoms. It does make me laugh to consider that Buddha may have an aneurysm. :grin:

I'm pretty confident it isn't. — Banno

Imagine a diamond where each facet of the diamond is the whole diamond. This is Schopenhauer. Knowing that it's true, not wondering, but knowing, is part of an altered state. Think of it as a different brand of logic.

Although, the saying is: the difference between a mystic and a philosopher is that the philosopher tries to explain it. The mystic doesn't.

Did you have any success entering lucid dreaming states? — Janus

I woke up in a dream once, but I changed something that went against the integrity of the dream reality and I immediately woke up. That never happened again.

When I got sucked into the limbo state was when I was doing that meditation where you ask "Who am I"? I never did that again, but sometimes I could feel the limbo coming. I discovered that if you focus on breathing, it goes away.

The bigger they get, the harder they fall.

I was sucked into a kind of deathly vortex which seemed to be a state of paralysis between waking and sleep — Janus

I would get that too. I eventually learned that if you focus on breathing you can get back out of it.

As much as we criticize globalization, a collapse of globalization has absolutely dire consequences. The Bronze Age Collapse was the first collapse of globalization. Another collapse of globalization happened when Antiquity turned into the Dark Ages. — ssu

One of my favorite topics. The second collapse was Rome. Per Eric Cline, natural disasters including drought and earthquakes appear to have contributed to the Bronze age collapse. The other factors were warfare, and internal social upheaval that may have been the result of class struggle (but we don't really know). Cline believes it was a 'perfect storm' of events. With climate change set to increase stress in the world, we very well may be headed for another collapse.

Then later followed Castaneda's Art of Dreaming instructions with amazing results altering my understandings of reality. — jgill

Cool!

I agree. I think Biden was from the generation that saw US prominence as an imperative, but we're moving toward the phase where we realize there's no percentage in trying to secure global order. Let it all go to hell. Why should we stick out big fat noses into it?

As a child, I was convinced that there's something behind the world I can see, as if it's all a veil and whatever is behind it is "more real.". When I later came across Plato's allegory of the cave, I was a little shocked because it seemed so familiar.

I can't avoid reading my childish ideas into Plato and all the other philosophers who seem to echo the same thing. At this stage I think "more real" is a metaphor.

I guess this thread should go in the lounge. It's theology, not philosophy.

Christianity is pretty irrelevant to ethics. — Banno

Jesus was a moral nihilist of sorts, replacing the whole Mosaic law with the rule of love. Most of the human race isn't ready for Christianity. We still need moral laws like a bunch of bratty children.

Maybe it's related to Hegel's idea of partial truths, or Rumi's "magnificent lie.". This implies a higher truth, or something more real, but that's just poetry for it.

Through this thread I kind of changed my mind, though. The prevailing scientific view of the self isn't Cartesian is it? Except for a couple of physicists who entertain some kind of panpsychism, aren't most scientists non-reductive physicalists?

I suspect Descartes would be uncomfortable with the contemporary radical separation of subject/object. — Arne

Hagberg says that view originates in the 20th Century and was projected back onto Descartes.

One day the world will end, and we won't know why it will end until it does end. Until then, the jury is out as to whether the guy you knew is correct. — Hanover

That's good. I want it to be a surprise.

I know that argument, but that's the stupid argument from logical necessity, like God can be created by syllogism. — Hanover

I knew a guy who claimed that if we don't go over to the Mayan calendar, the world will end. He wrote letters to the UN trying to explain to them that the word "week" sounds a lot like "weak", and based on that, we need to change the way the days are named. "Like for instance, today is Blue Galactic Monkey day." he said.

Was South Vietnam a treaty ally of the US?
Nope. — ssu

US involvement in Vietnam was due to appeals from the French. The French told the US government that trade routes for rubber went through Vietnam, so that if it became communist, those routes would be cut off. The US originally fought in Vietnam with their ships disguised as French vessels. Crazy, but true.

Descartes believed God is a necessary thing, which he demonstrates by analyzing the idea of perfection. Descartes' Ontological Argument

Or, more properly, they are -- but they are also acts of intellect. — Moliere

Yea. Existentialists tell you to pay attention to your first person experience, but they do it in an intellectual way. Kind of contradictory. :grin: