And let's face it: if Putin would get an armstice or a frozen conflict on these frontlines at present, he could say the war has had been a great success. — ssu

It doesn't look like the Ukrainians are in the mood. The war crimes just keep rolling out day after day.

There's the realism/antirealism of ontology, — Banno

Per Chalmers, ontological realism just says that statements of idealism or materialism are truth apt. Ontological anti-realism denies this.

It's probably best to give a quick definition of the kind of realism you want to talk about.

The idea of there being one true belief, and the concomitant persecution of heretics, seems to be something for which we can thank Christianity. — Banno

Sadly, Aquinas' justification for executing heretics, referred to by Catholics during the inquisitions, was a passage from Plato.

Presumably, Islam ("{submission") borrowed the idea in spreading acceptance of its teachings. — Banno

"Islam" was originally a term for an aspect of the Arabian economy. Traveling merchants could pay the local bandits to allow them to pass through the desert unmolested. This pact was called islam, and the one who paid this fee was a muslim (one who submits).

When Muhammad joined all the Arabian tribes together, a problem arose stemming from the fact that raiding was part of the economy, and now nobody was raiding anybody else. This led to the eruption of Arabs out into the Iranian world. At first, the Muslims wouldn't allow Iranians to convert to Islam. Eventually there was a revolt, and the Iranians took back their territory, as Muslims. Now former Christians, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians were the Muslim elite. This is why, for the most part, Islam was spread in the Persian language, not Arabic.

There are scholarly viewpoints on both Plato and the gospels.

Sometimes Christians decide they have special knowledge about how to properly interpret the Bible. Apparently the same thing can happen with Plato. The former gives rise to a new Christian sect. I have no idea what the latter view, clearly opposed to scholarship, becomes.

Come now. I've been a lawyer for a long time. I recognize a cross-examination of a very friendly witness; I've done more than a few. In the case of Plato and his sock-puppet Socrates (I don't think it's believed by anyone that Plato was a stenographer, faithfully recording questions asked of the real Socrates and answers given by him), Plato isn't even examining such a witness; he's asking questions he's contrived and answering them as he pleases. He has points to make and uses dialogue as a rhetorical device to make them. — Ciceronianus

:up: Plato clearly believed in a divinity of some sort.

But Plato was an advocate of certain political and philosophical positions, not merely engaged in an academic enterprise. — Ciceronianus

He was profoundly disillusioned by the behavior of the Athenians around the time of Socrates' execution.

As I noted, that is the subject of this thread. — T Clark

Okey dokey.

That's the subject of this discussion. — T Clark

You stated that what is usually considered to be reality may be distinct from reality as viewed from a philosophical perspective.

Can you not articulate what the potential difference is?

What is generally accepted as reality" is not necessarily the same as reality as viewed from a philosophical perspective. — T Clark

What's the difference?

Aren't delusions unreal by definition?
— frank

That's one of the questions on the table. — T Clark

Delusion:

"An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument."

What about the definition are you questioning?

An alternative philosophical question - to what extent is the delusion real? — T Clark

Aren't delusions unreal by definition?

I fairly regularly get to standby when a person's been given Ketamine for some painful procedure. That drug puts people under so they don't feel pain or move, but as they're coming out of it, they usually go into a dissociative state that's terrifying.

There was one person who screamed over and over that he wasn't real. Turned out, he'd been convinced that he was a character in a video game, which just the kind of bizarre shit Katamine produces.

So of course, the philosophical question that comes to one is: how do I know I'm not on Ketamine? What criteria would I use to determine that?

Yes, Biden and Obama are in opposite sides of the Democratic party spectrum. That's normal. Presidential candidates usually try to pick someone who complements them to appeal to more voters.

This is why Obama wouldn't have picked someone like Sanders as a running mate: the ticket would have leaned too progressive to win.

Trump is a wildcard in terms of foreign policy. He knew next to nothing about global politics and cared less, except for his grudge against China for its biased trading demands. A lot of people thought it was time for China-American trade to become more fair to Americans. Biden was expected to thaw relations with China, but maintain the trade war.

As for Russia, while campaigning, Biden couldn't have made it more clear that he planned to punish Putin in some way for interfering in American elections. Putin handed him the means to do so.

Omg, that's so sad. Russian unemployment rate:

It kind of looks like he's trying to lower the unemployment rate in Russia by killing off men.

People would first need to shed statism as they did religion. — NOS4A2

They do shed statism when the state system collapses as it did at the end of the Bronze Age and when Rome fell. What follows is a dark age where warlords roam around destroying everything and paying for allegiance with loot.

The possibility of creating technology, universities, science, artists, philosophers, etc. only opens up when people adapt to the emergence of states again.

Western Rationality is relentlessly undermined by all forms of media determined to condemn all things Russia and all things Putin into Dante's 9th circle of hell. The myriad articles, opinion pieces, dramatic images, accompanied by stirring music is all a powerful psychedelic that warps otherwise normal people, who care nothing about geopolitics nor have any real interest in the matter, now spontaneously tell you how Putin is literally evil. — yebiga

You've got to stop dropping acid before you read the newspaper.

Will the war have the effect of cementing Putin's control over Russia? Or loosen it?

The problem with saying Russia was threatened, so we should have seen this coming, is that no one saw it coming. Biden was ridiculed across the globe for warning that Putin was about to invade. Nobody believed it even in Russia and Ukraine.

Well, you'll see it in 2027-2030 when you buy a BigMac. — ssu

I don't buy Big Mac's. :grin:

I don't know enough about economics to assess that intelligently.

NATO membership was being contemplated long before Crimea. — Xtrix

By Ukrainians, yes.

The real reason is the fiscal and monetary policy implemented for decades. I think the basically all the Corona policies implemented just broke the dam. — ssu

How so? Inflation hasn't been a problem for the past few decades.

Handing out cash to people finally could do it, — ssu

If you're talking about the stimulus payments, I don't think that was enough to generate the inflation we're seeing. If you add up all the elements of the pandemic response, plus the subsequent labor shortage which made wages increase, supply line problems, a global petroleum shortage, and a sluggish Fed, all together, that gave us high inflation. The Fed is going to increase rates again this fall, but that isn't expected to stop inflation. We'll just have a recession with inflation. :grimace:

:up:

Putin at a summit in Astana: "2.5 million people live in Crimea. They [Ukrainians] cut off the water [from the Dnieper to the peninsula] just like that - so the [Russian] troops had to go in and open the water to Crimea. Just as an example of the logic of our actions."

Simple as that :roll: — SophistiCat

How do you think the war is most likely to play out?

ok.

Well that was a distracting waste of time. — Isaac

You're welcome.

Yet the argument is frequently given here that "that's straight from Russian propaganda" as if that fact had some bearing on the likely veracity of the point being made. You'll agree, then, it has none whatsoever. — Isaac

If it came from Trump's mouth, it may be true, but I'd be wary. Definitely don't take his word for it. Same with Putin. I wouldn't say the same of Macron, or of Biden for that matter.

In fact, if Biden wasn't the president, his perspective is one I'd seek out.

, it's completely relevant because the argument was that anti-US sentiment shouldn't be repeated if Putin said it because Putin lies. — Isaac

That's a fallacious ad hominem, obviously.

I don't understand this. If it exists nowhere, it doesn't exist. — Hanover

It's a quantity.



I have a theory about why this seems counter intuitive. I think we have a sense of physics informed by emotions and sensations. We all know what it's like to have pent up energy and we know where it's located from sensations. We use this to understand physics.

What part of my post is this responding to? I'm not asking this dickishly, but I don't see how that responded to it, but it could have, but I just don't see it. — Hanover

You said the potential energy is in the spring (or at least you seemed to.). Strictly speaking, potential energy doesn't have a location. You could think of it as a sophisticated prediction.

As such, the fact that Putin repeats it has no bearing whatsoever on its likely veracity. Which was the point Manuel was making. — Isaac

That's true. It's a case of ad hominem. Ad hominem is acceptable in cases where it's wise to be skeptical of an individual's statements because that person lies unusually frequently.

You're pointing out that they could be telling the truth. That's irrelevant.

Potential energy is part of an analysis of a state of things wrt all the possibilities associated with that state.

The formula is always something like:

potential energy = kinetic energy times resistance

So the less resistance (like a penny falling through air instead of honey), the bigger the kinetic energy in the event (the penny goes fast instead of slowly). It's the same potential, though, matter what the resistance is.

I see. So if Putin said 'X' then X might be true or it might not be true. — Isaac

Correct. But since he lies so frequently, it can be difficult to know which he's doing.

You saw the video Olivier posted where his own soldiers didn't know they were going into battle until they were actually on the way to Kiev. Talk about information fog.

That wasn't what I asked. I was asking for an example of this 'always lie' tactic in action — Isaac

The principle is to lie frequently so that people don't know when to believe and when not to.

So can you give me an example of where Putin has said something positive about America or Ukraine — Isaac

I don't think he ever said anything negative about Ukraine, did he? Except maybe the Nazi Ukrainians.

Why would Putin lie all the time? — Isaac

There have been articles about it. It's a tactic for creating a general information fog.

You are right that countries will lie often. Not always, nor is agreeing with some of the things they say make you support them. — Manuel

That's true. My point was just that doubting Putin is kind of like doubting Trump. The total disregard for truth is unusual in both cases.

Of course it doesn't make sense. But the US has to be the bad guy. Always. — ssu

I think that's the rudder for a lot of folks. They react specifically against the idea of the US showing up in a positive light.

I think all political entities are better conceived forces of nature. You get closer to the truth that way, I think.

This point generalized to virtually every government in the world. They all commit crimes to differing degrees — Manuel

Putin changes his stories pretty frequently, though. You get to the point where you're not second guessing him or wondering what he really meant by such and such, you just discount everything he says because it's all lies.

Yes, Americans lie too, but the only American I know of who lies the way Putin does is Trump. I don't advise believing anything he says.

Why is it the US being castigated for Putin acting aggressively. This is the same rhetoric against Hitlers trying to take over neighbors and other nations trying not to provoke him. Im pretty sure almost no one agrees with someone like Neville Chamberlain in hindsight. Why would a country be at fault for helping an ally defend against an aggressor? — schopenhauer1

That's a good question. I think there's a thread of truth to it, but there's more going on than that. Honestly, I think it will be a few years before we get the historian's take on what happened.