Get back to work then! It's not the weekend yet. — Metaphysician Undercover

:grin:

I don't know, this thread has not gone anywhere in millions of years of discussion. Maybe a good conspiracy theory could liven it up a bit. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is a weekend project for me.

Practical skill, the manifest image, ordinary life. — Pie

So it's not just idealism you see as problematic. It's realism as well.

but it's unstable as a foundation — Pie

What serves as your stable foundation?

And in so doing they act in much the same way as the realists they critique. — Banno

Nothing wrong with that

Both realism and idealism must posit something bedsides one's mind. — Banno

To avoid solipsism, yes.

Hence, in order to show that idealism is not merely a form of solipsism, any mooted idealist must show that other minds exist. — Banno

They can just posit that there are other minds if they want to. Realists do that. Nobody actually tries to apply logic to whether there are other minds.

Interesting.

Good to see you exercising your comprehension skills. Yes. — Banno

NOS4A2 has already made one poster fall ass backwards into that one. Good to see you're not as stupid.

You only own property if we say you do. — Banno

I think you're saying that property rights only mean something in the context of community.

You don't want to argue that we can't make mistakes and dispossess people immorally. That would be giving a big thumbs up to a lot of gruesome crimes.

is not a matter of some "therefore". People have always had different opinions about their obligations to others. — Fooloso4

Doesn't this have some impact on the kinds of societies we build?

Name a culture that didn't have its version of one percenters (or there abouts).
— Tate

Is it something we want to eliminate? — Fooloso4

I don't know. What do you think?

And yet in practice many are ignored. — Fooloso4

I think what you're saying is that there is no consensus regarding the morality of ignoring people in need. Therefore we have a lot of them.

Similar in that the few are in power — Fooloso4

That's what I meant. Name a culture that didn't have its version of one percenters (or there abouts).

There are some, but not many.

Is it? There is a great deal of unresolved disagreement: We cannot even agree on the status of moral principles let alone what they are. — Fooloso4

We can agree it's not right to ignore people in need without establishing the status of morality, can't we?

They are not aristocrats. They are plutocrats. — Fooloso4

Pretty much the same thing.

When you are dealing with a dysfunctional/psychotic regime, such as the one that currently exists in China, in some ways you have to be careful but in other ways just ignore them. — dclements

They could definitely use a little more gravitas.

If everyone stuck to their moral guns, the world would be different.
— Tate

To what end? A shootout?

Anti-abortion advocates are not only sticking to their guns. They have an array of weapons and are using them effectively, ignoring the collateral damages. — Fooloso4

Abortion is an exception to the rule. We generally agree on moral principles like: it's not right to ignore people in need. There's a whole philosophy behind ignoring that duty.



Capitalism did something amazing. It took the old aristocracy out of the picture and made everyone equal under the law.

Immediately, a new aristocracy appeared. They have shaped public opinion to support their agendas.

I think the system needs a revision that will only come when some event breaks the power of the reigning aristocrats.

Will a new elite immediately appear after that?

That is not what I said. — Fooloso4

I misunderstood then. Earlier in this thread, NOS4A2 manipulated Isaac into saying that a Nazi attack on Jews was ok.

Amorality on the part of the majority is, in large part, responsible for wealth inequality. So I link Isaac's questionable moral compass to the problem.

If everyone stuck to their moral guns, the world would be different. We don't do that, though. We value strength over morality. Even leftists do that, as this forum demonstrates.

don't focus on the anarchist, focus on your own values (if you have any moral compass at all) and don't give in to the temptation to stray from what you know is right.
— Tate

This, in my opinion, is part to the problem. It presents it as if it is simply a matter of competing values. Each side believes it knows what is right. Ranks are closed. Information is treated as if it is polemic and handled selectively. — Fooloso4

Focusing on your own values is relativism?

For China? Unification. For the US? A way to control China's ambitions. — Manuel

I would say the Democrats want a presence in the Pacific. There's no telling what the Republicans want. I don't think they have any coherent foreign policy since Trump. So China just needs to wait until the next Republican president. They don't have to respond at all to Pelosi.

What is China going to do about it? We will find out soon. — Manuel

Probably nothing.

The mistaken belief that the common good is arithmetic, nothing more than my interests plus or minus the interests of others. — Fooloso4

It's worth noting that the American taxation system is presently reinforcing wealth disparity. Only a fool would let an anarchist paint them into the corner of arguing for a malicious system.

The way to avoid that is: don't focus on the anarchist, focus on your own values (if you have any moral compass at all) and don't give in to the temptation to stray from what you know is right.

Only choose allies who maintain their integrity so you don't accidentally end up on the wrong side of history.

Not sure what the strategic interest in Taiwan is. Pelosi is like, "Whatcha gonna do about it?"

1. Does one have a right to one's earnings?

Of course.

2. Is taxation theft?

It can be, as in the case of the Nazis placing a special tax on Jews, or the British taxing American colonists who had no representation in the British Parliament.

3. Is it always theft?

Not according to the average person. When it pays for government expenditures that are on behalf of the community, and it's levied by a Congress made up of representatives, it's not theft. It's we, the people, paying our bills.

So the capital levy on Jewish wealth imposed in 1938 proves that it wasn’t their property after all?
— NOS4A2

It wasn't in 1938, no. It is now. — Isaac

That's the wrong answer.

Pretty sure fiat currencies are owned by the government anyway. — Michael

The actual coins and paper are, but the government's backing turns that into money.

It's like bright without dim, left without right. If there was only one person, what need for saying 'I think X.' Or of saying 'it seems to me that X.'

As I see it, when I say 'as I see it,' I am politely acknowledging that I don't have to authority or certainty to grandly declare the way things simply are full stop. I offer a hypothesis that I am explicitly willing to revise as the conversation develops. If I say that I know something, that vaguely suggests my readiness to justify my authority to make such a claim according to the norms of the community we both belong to. For instance, mathematician might 'know' something is a theorem (is true) because he's familiar with the proof. Notice how we all know that we are all here together subject to various rules. From this perspective we can examine concepts like the self and knowledge in terms of moves in a social game. — Pie

All well said. But what about that perspective from which we see the self and knowledge as residents of a social complex: is this perspective the 'fool on the hill'? Who is it that stands apart to see this?

Isn't this view meaningful relative to the other one, where the self is independent? Are we explaining by comparing diverging narratives?

Necessary or not it has it. I cannot defend my property or take it back by force. At any rate, I’d prefer it wouldn’t take my wealth in any fashion. — NOS4A2

Not even for national defense?

I read between the lines! Perhaps an overactive imagination. Apologies, I'm into conspiracy theories! :blush: — Agent Smith

Let's not do that, ok?

Without the Other, the "I" would... what? Disintegrate?

The gist of the OP seems to be that global warming maybe just what the doctor ordered for the coming ice age. Hot + Cold = Just right (re Goldilocks & the 3 bears). — Agent Smith

Actually the OP doesn't say that at all.

What about the intellect, the ego (the "I"), and the self. Do you think they're explainable?

Tate

Ah. Apologies; since you had just said that, I thought that it was one of your articles. — unenlightened

No. I was just killing two birds with one stone: contributing to this topic and preparing to edit a poorly written Wikipedia page. That page used sources that misquoted other sources. Not good.

If you want, we could talk a little bit about the present major ice age, sometimes called the Quaternary. We can discuss theories about why it happened. The Wikipedia articles for that are pretty good, so I'll reference them.

To review:
Major ice ages, as we discussed, happen for a variety of reasons.

In the case of the Quaternary, for some time now the leading theory has been about a change in ocean currents which happened about two and a half million years ago. It is true that atmospheric CO2 is down about 90% from what it was before the Quaternary, but that may be a positive reinforcing side effect as opposed to a cause. Cold water holds more CO2 than warm water, so as the ocean currents changed to cool the surface, the oceans started pulling in CO2, cooling the world further.

From here:

An important component in the development of long-term ice ages is the positions of the continents.[16] These can control the circulation of the oceans and the atmosphere, affecting how ocean currents carry heat to high latitudes. Throughout most of geologic time, the North Pole appears to have been in a broad, open ocean that allowed major ocean currents to move unabated. Equatorial waters flowed into the polar regions, warming them. This produced mild, uniform climates that persisted throughout most of geologic time.

"But during the Cenozoic Era, the large North American and South American continental plates drifted westward from the Eurasian plate. This interlocked with the development of the Atlantic Ocean, running north–south, with the North Pole in the small, nearly landlocked basin of the Arctic Ocean. The Drake passage opened 33.9 million years ago (the Eocene-Oligocene transition), severing Antarctica from South America. The Antarctic Circumpolar Current could then flow through it, isolating Antarctica from warm waters and triggering the formation of its huge ice sheets. The Isthmus of Panama developed at a convergent plate margin about 2.6 million years ago, and further separated oceanic circulation, closing the last strait, outside the polar regions, that had connected the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.[17] This increased poleward salt and heat transport, strengthening the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation, which supplied enough moisture to arctic latitudes to create the northern glaciation.[18]"

We the planet should be so lucky to re-glaciate, preferably before the 2024 election. — Bitter Crank

It's going to be a shit show. I agree.

But wiki is better than clickbait. — unenlightened

That click bait article was referred to by the Wiki article.

I'll be using a range of articles from scientific publications.

I cannot comment on the computer model, but my argument is that this is very very bad news, not good news. — unenlightened

That title was click bait. The article was supposed support this statement:

"The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years..."

Firstly, the Wikipedia statement doesn't even make sense. Secondly, the cited articles don't support it. That Wikipedia article is going to be edited.

This is the first article:

Live Science

This is a report on a computer model. The article states:

"Even if we burn only a quarter of the Earth's total reserves of fossil fuels (currently we have burned less than one tenth of reserves), the carbon dioxide remaining in the atmosphere could cause the next ice age to be skipped because ice sheets and glaciers will have melted and won't be able to reform substantially, Tyrrell found."

"In fact, burning up all of Earth's reserves would prevent the next five ice ages, the model shows, he said."

So one of the problems with Wikipedia's article is

"The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted..."

What amount? The amount we've emitted so far? No. That amount is not predicted to cause a miss of coming glacial triggers.

Burning all the fuel we can access probably would, as I've previously noted, twice.

You're obviously well informed.

Why don't we look at some of the research behind this:

But manmade global warming is likely to tip us out of the icehouse and into the hothouse which neither humans nor apes have ever experienced. — unenlightened

Specifically, let's look at the support for this Wikipedia statement in it's article entitled "Ice Ages":

"The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles after.[4][5][6]"

I have university access to scientific papers today, so I'll print out the articles referenced by the Wikipedia article and we can discuss them. Sound good?

. If your take away was that the next ice age is relevant to global warming now then you simply cannot read. — Benkei

You've been continuously abusive. I've made a normal request in the face of your accusation. You can't engage in good faith. I'm ignoring you from here out.

Would you mind quoting the part you think I'm not familiar with?

Not always. This interglacial started with an abrupt change called the Younger Dryas. We would notice if that happened. A shutdown of the oceanic heat conveyor is believed to have caused it and scientists are watching that current now because it's slowing down due to global warming.

Ice ages are irrelevant for the timescale of global warming — Benkei

There's no harm in discussing it. We are discussing it in my thread. Josh already put up a quote from an MIT reviewed article from a scientist who disagrees with you.

You simply use a euphemism of "doing nothing" to represent business as usual, in a pretty obvious attempt to trick others into your false-balance-framework or then trick even yourself. — boethius

Having recently experienced a philosophy forum pile on which included you, I'm going to speak up and declare your approach wrong, unfair, and quasi-spanish-inquisition-McCarthyish, and I'm strongly opposed. Let's not do that.

If someone is clearly denying climate change, fine, let's pile on. If someone is just advocating widening our understanding, we should not feel threatened by that. There's nothing wrong with that.

:up: :up: :up: :up: