• Religious discussion is misplaced on a philosophy forum...
    because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Says". — Banno

    Theologies worth discussing are logical within their self-contained systems and involve some degree of rigor in deciphering their texts. It's very similar to secular philosophy, especially where the object is in understanding the views of a particular philosopher. I find it particularity similar to the way you philosophize within your Wittgensteinian cult.
  • The Amputee Problem
    In any case - coming at it as someone who was raised Jewish - I've never found appeals to the existence of evil in the world as contradicting God's existence particularly convincing. God is no pure, Christian saint. — BitconnectCarlos

    This strikes me as incorrect, but I'll defer to whatever cites you have to Judaic authority, as I recognize there might be variation in Jewish thought. See, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides for Maimonedes views on theodicy (the problem of evil): "God did not create evil, rather God created good, and evil exists where good is absent (Guide for the Perplexed , 3:10).

    I also read the Lubavitcher Rebbe Schneerson as coming extremely close to denying evil exists in any form, including the Holocaust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_theology . This Wiki article does best address the theodicy question in Judaism in that the summaries of Jewish views it provides ach grapple with the very Jewish question of how an omnibenevolent God could allow for the Holocaust. The Jewish view is not, as you suggest, because God is evil.

    To your greater thesis that Christianity worships a fundamentally different diety than the Jews. I'm hesitant to accept. The. New Testament obviously alters the OT theology, but I don't think so radically that Christians will claim their God is not the God of Abraham. The Fundamentalsts believe in fact the OT to be the literal word of God.
  • The Amputee Problem
    The appeal to amputees in these scenarios is inherently casting them in a negative light: as if their differently abled bodies are an instance of "evil" or in need of being "healed".

    Ergo, atheism has a common problem of ableism and is morally bankrupt, etc.     — JohnRB

    This is a strange thread to get all worked up about I think. We all suffer from disabilities of some sort, I suppose, with some weaker in some respects and some stronger than others when compared to one another.

    Am I to understand the atheist's argument in its most abstract form is that there must not be a perfect God if there are imperfect people? That seems to be a logical argument in some regard and might really be just a restatement of the problem of evil, as in, how can there be something less than perfect (i.e. that which is to some degree bad) with an all perfect creator?

    My guess is that the ableism objections arose due to those who lacked particular tact, due to those who had particular sensitives, or a combination of both. Regardless, how can there be bad when God is all good? That's a tough one.
  • Studying abroad.
    ↪Michael
    I don't know the song about Rotterdam, but I'll tell my son Rotterdam might not be real. He'll need to know that before he goes there.

    He's a finance major, so even if Rotterdam is real, I'm not sure learning about finance in a communist country makes sense.
  • Studying abroad.
    My son told he might study abroad as well. He found somewhere in Rotterdam he'd like to go, which I am to learn in addition to Amsterdam is another city in the Netherlands. I'd ask that @Benkei begin making arrangements for his arrival. He would like accommodations that include a shower, which I understand is a luxury in Europe.
  • The burning fawn.
    Notice the unusual myown fixation in this thread on the word "gratuitous"? — Wallows

    But your use of the term "gratuitous" is an injection of your judgment upon the acts of God, which is only to say you've inserted your non-theistic worldview into a theistic question, which is "what is evil?" So, sure, if you start with the given that the fawn's pain is just pain for no good reason (which I assume your use of the term "gratuitous" means to you), then you've established that God is not all good by logical necessity.

    However, if you start from the theistic view that God is all good, then you cannot declare any event as truly evil if it occurs as the result of God's creation, but you are left at deciphering the mystery of how the fawn's suffering is an event that results in a higher good than had the fawn not so suffered. You may think an attempt to explain away evil, even in in most striking forms, is absurd, but such is the challenge to those who take these theistic concepts seriously.

    If you continue to see this world's events as all there is to reality, then I do think you are left with the conclusion that there is evil. But, if you adopt a view that there is a higher purpose you cannot understand that transcends this world as we know it, then the fawn's suffering cannot be so clearly understood as evil.
  • The burning fawn.
    What is your response to the burning fawn scenario with respect to God? — Wallows

    Should the fawn have not burned and lived a perfect life in a pristine utopian forest, and should have every one of God's creatures have done the same, would you then conclude God is omnibenevolent?

    If so, you're suggesting the ultimate good is in living the hedonistic life and are ignoring the suggestion there might be more to this creation than the moment. I'm not telling you you're wrong, only that if you wish to adopt the theist's worldview of the all good God, you're going to also have to buy into his view there is greater purpose to the world than your day to day struggles and successes.
  • America: Why the lust for domination and power?
    Will this incessant need for power and domination ever cease? — Wallows

    I certainly hope not. The fact that millions of Americans, including politicians, business leaders, and ordinary citizens, wake every morning driven passionately to keep America at the center of the universe allows me sleep safely and relieves me of the pessimism that everyone here confuses for astute grave observation.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    Meanwhile, the Democrats with their liberal arts and law degrees speak to them as if they are speaking to a college professor, using fancy words and acting like namby-pambies, expecting the rural white male right winger to listen because the Dems policies would make their lives better, but who wants to listen to a pussy? — Noah Te Stroete

    Right, because all lawyers and educated folks are Democrats and smart and all rural white conservatives are dumb as shit. Only morons buy into the liberty mythology which has time and time again failed. One day they'll notice the wild success of Marxism and all the joy it has brought to the world and they'll change their tune.

    Good post. Thank you.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    It's the classic thing: ask a liberal, a right-leaning libertarian, a Trumpist, a progressive what is good in America and what is Un-American, I assume you won't get the same answer. — ssu

    I draw a distinction between what is good for America and what is unAmerican. What is good for America is a pragmatic question. What is un-American is what violates its underlying ideology. For example, very strict gun control might be good for America, but it would also be unAmerican.

    And that raises an interesting point, because a constant argument from the left is that the working class rural right often votes against its interests by supporting policies that favor the wealthy. The response is that they are not motivated by self-interest, but by ideology, which is as consistent as the very rich voting for socialism. The rural working class are motivated much more by American concepts of liberty than they are in receiving additional government social security measures, even if pragmatically, they'd be better off with a larger government.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    That doesn't make sense. The Constitution can still be amended so can be subject to change even if it were incompatible with Communism (which it isn't necessarily). So, for realz, a person born in the USA is by definition an American. If this person is also a convinced communist, is he still an American according to you? — Benkei

    I do believe there is something thematic about the Constitution, and I don't know of an Amendment that has violated that theme, but I suppose it's hypothetically possible that an amendment could be passed that could be so antithetical to the established American ideology that it could change its very nature. So, could you add a chapter to the Bible that praised Satan and changed the entire nature of the book? I guess. I just have to pray to Lucifer that doesn't happen.

    As to your second question, I've drawn a distinction between being an American and having an American ideology. It's sort of like I'm born Jewish, but I may praise Satan, which would make me a very unJewish Jew. Paradoxical to be sure, but clear now that I've clarified.

    Feel free to hit me with another question that challenges the consistency of my beliefs. I'll come up with something.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    You are a funny dude, but I still don’t like you. — Noah Te Stroete

    I'm sure you would. I have universal appeal.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    Awesome. We have gotten to "unAmerican ideals"! — ssu

    Whether it's awesome or not, I don't know. But that there is an ideology associated with America is obvious, easily decipherable from the Constitution, the Declaration, writings by the founders, and even as noted in writings by others (as I referenced Lincoln). Whether one considers being called unAmerican an insult or point of pride is another matter, but it is a meaningful statement.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    Americans are less ideologically diverse because being American means you don't hold certain ideologies. :rofl: — Benkei

    That's not what I said. I said that there are American ideals, so I'm not sure how you got what you said from what I said.

    I also have to call bullshit on your emoji. No way you laughed so hard you cried. Maybe you made a muffled "hmm" or something at what you saw to be contradictory, but you're just not that animated.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    Whoosh. That was the sarcasm flying past your head. — Benkei

    I will for now on spend more time unpacking the nuance impregnated in your posts.
    You seem to be under the false impression only Democrats want to legalise weed for instance. — Benkei
    You don't know what I'm under the false impression about. Only I know that, but that might not make any sense, but it sounds ridiculous enough for me to say, so I'll say it.

    At any rate, I'm in favor of weed legalization. That's consistent with the Libertarian sentiment within conservatism and its ideology of limited government interference in personal decisions. The appeasement of the religious wing of the Republican party is what led to the war on drugs, but that had its heyday many years ago. The point is that there are plenty of drug legalization advocates who would classify as conservative, but probably a lesser number of actual pot smokers are conservatives, mostly because, well, someone has to go to work and pay the bills.

    Finally, I would like to think Americans as a people are as heterogeneous as Europeans and that political ideas from communism to despotism are represented among them. But in the US political arena only a very small fraction of that is represented (typical right of centre to right wing, with more difference on a cultural axis). It leads to a very impoverished political debate and a lot of ideological grand standing over perceived differences which are in fact minimal from any country with a pluralistic democratic system. Democrat or Republican you're screwed either way but you'll thank them for the privilege depending on what party you vote for. Bernie has a chance of changing this. — Benkei

    Actually Americans are more ethnically diverse than Europeans but less ideologically diverse. That's because being American is different from being Dutch. America, quoting Lincoln, was conceived in liberty, making it distinct among other nations in that it was created under certain ideals. It did not spring forth from the settlement of one tribe after the other and arise from a common people sharing a common ethnic and genetic background. Assimilation is part of the American fabric and we do see certain ideals as creating a bond between our citizens. It's why the rift between these ideals is so polarizing because each side sees the other as unAmerican, which does remain a meaningful claim. I just don't think it matters quite so much for a Dutch person to claim himself a communist because being communist doesn't mean the person can't be Dutch as well. However, I would say that being communist keeps you from being American, largely because I see being an American as requiring an allegiance to a certain ideology, thus the term "unAmerican ideals" holds meaning.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    Our politicians aren't so retarded to think they can ignore polling data about important issues. — Benkei

    You said that only one vote mattered, which was a reference to the one vote the people make at the ballot box. That's how that works.

    In terms of whether our politicians look at polling data, I'm sure they do, but I'd expect they're more interested in what those who voted them want than their opponents. Maybe in the Netherlands, no one is in a party and no one has an ideology, but all politicians vote exactly the same based upon the objective polling data and unanimous votes are the norm.

    In the US, our politicians do whatever the hell they want, totally disregarding the will of the people, but then they get re-elected because they talk fast and say exciting things.

    It's an interesting contrast between our two nations, but it's good to understand the differences so that we can all live in harmony, with you in your irrelevant underwater outpost, and me in the center of universe.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    You seem to have forgotten he lost the popular vote. — Benkei

    You seem to forget that the majority vote isn't relevant. Campaigning is strategized around the electoral college system, so whether Trump would have won had the rules been different is unknown.
    Yeah, never mind trying to figure out what people actually want and need. There's just one moment in time that matters. And together with your two similar options for parties is why the US is a failed democracy. Congrats. — Benkei

    Do you guys vote daily in the Netherlands just to be sure you keep with the popular sentiment.
    He's only reactionary to you because you're a die hard Conservative. To a lot of Americans he isn't. The proof we see in his performance in iowa and new Hampshire. — Benkei

    I just mean he's a reaction to Trump, who was a reaction to Obama, who was a reaction to GW. I admit Trump is reactionary. I don't know what that has to do with me being Conservative.

    Why is Bernie doing well? He's young, hip, sharp, articulate, and he's captured the hearts and minds of the American public with his dazzling personality. It's either that or he gained popularity when he was the only one that Clinton couldn't exclude from the race with back room deals last election and everyone hates Trump so much that they're now willing to vote for a dying, babbling Socialist.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    Polling tracks popular sentiment. A series of polls (data points) tracks a trend (curve) of popular movement, or direction. The polls in 2016 accurately predicted that HRC would win 'the popular vote' (just as they also were accurate in 2000 predicting that AG would win 'the popular vote'). U.S. presidential elections are decided, however, not by 'the popular vote' but by the Electoral College. Why otherwise intelligent folks keep mindlessly repeating this "the polls are not accurate" innumerate crypto-conspiracy bullshit is beyond me. — 180 Proof

    The reason people keep saying the polls aren't accurate is because they aren't. They did the polling by state and incorrectly predicted wins in the various states They then used that incorrect information to add up the electoral college votes and incorrectly predicted Clinton would win. It's not as if they did a single national poll and just assumed since Clinton won that, she'd win the election. They knew how the electoral college worked when they did the polls.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    Research is quite clear on this. What the majority of voters want doesn't matter in the USA. — Benkei

    Ahh yes, the objective research shows that America does not want what Trump offers but the Trump voters are too stupid to vote for what they want.
    Bernie Sanders isn't reactionary at all but the most sensible of the democrats as it most closely aligns what a majority of Americans want. As consistently polled when people are asked about policies without identifying whether it's a republican or democratic idea. — Benkei
    The only polling that matters is that actual polling that occurs on election day. The other polls, and there were many, showed that Clinton was going to easily win the election. I guess you've located another poll that shows that Americans really don't want the president that they elected and that even should they continue to vote for him, they really don't want him.

    Also, we're mostly not Liberal but then that's not the only thing Americans consistently get wrong because they actually barely know anything about anything outside of the US. — Benkei

    The quibble is likely over how you use the term "liberal," not in what I think European politics is like. I also realize that European politics varies from country to country, so I'm not suggesting there's a unified position on this.

    But, in speaking to my ignorance of the European mindset, I'm sure I'd be better informed if I lived it day to day like you. I expect I feel the same frustration you do in being told what the general sentiment of my country is. Bernie is absolutely reactionary and is part of a continual move to the left. It seemed to have started with Bush/Cheney, that begot Obama, that begot Trump, that will then beget Bernie (or someone similar) if not this cycle, the next.

    But, to the extent that you suggest that voters choose candidates for some reasons other than their polices, I think that's obvious. Charisma, presentation, persuasiveness, and rhetoric surely matters. It's why sometimes the ugly loser gets the girl. Surely you're familiar with that dynamic.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    Does it even make sense to talk of this as a right/left issue? Isn't it more a question of Trumpism vs. representative Democracy? — Echarmion

    No because that suggests that Trump wasn't voted into office.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    Beating Trump shouldn't be the goal, transforming US politics and aligning it more with what a majority of people want should be the goal. — Benkei

    This presupposes that the majority doesn't want what Trump offers. What you mean to say is that your hope is that US politics is brought into alignment with something you find more palatable.

    I'd argue on the other hand that if the Democrats wish to win, they need to move back to the center, instead of continuing to drift left because that shift is reactionary to Trump and not the result of a sudden desire by middle America to emulate European liberalism.
  • Is this murder?
    Murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."
  • The Last Word
    But are you not ashamed of your piddly 50 pages? And yeah, I voted, probably like 3 years ago. — Noble Dust

    The paltry quantity is offset by the superior quality. It is here most come for the final word on all topics.
  • Contributing to Society
    The trouble is, Hanover, that there’s nothing for them in that. They want immediate satisfaction, not a better world down the line. Maybe they don’t even know what they want. They reject the past and everything about it forgetting how they got here. — Brett

    Possibly, or just rationalizations for bad behavior.
  • Contributing to Society
    Voluntary charity ("sadaqah") is not mandatory. Therefore, according to Islamic law, it is perfectly legitimate to limit one's charitable contribution to mandatory charity only ("zakaat").

    It is not me who made the rules.     — alcontali

    Tzedakah is the Hebrew word for charity, and it is mandatory, and it generally agile should be 10% of your income under the tithe rules. That's the Jewish rule.
  • Contributing to Society
    Much better to give because you care, not because you are playing a game quid pro quo. — Wheatley

    There's a third option, which is that you give out of a feeling of obligation because it's your duty. I'd submit that is the highest option and the one you summarily reject.
  • The Last Word
    It's that time of year again. February 7th resolutions. Let's hear them folks. And please, this time in alphabetical order so I can more easily enter them into my database outside.
  • The Last Word
    I've honestly never understood the staying power of this thread. Is it a doppelgänger of the shoutbox? Do 50 pages compare to 900? I call on Hanover to give a reckoning. Again... — Noble Dust

    I think the OP makes abundantly clear the purpose of his thread. Perhaps review the first post and you'll fully understand it. If you haven't yet taken the poll, please do. Your response will be critical to the future success of this site.
  • Truth
    Again, you confuse his being on the chair with you being able to tell, to know, to believe that he is on the chair. — Banno

    And you confuse the fact that I'm not confused.

    Knowledge requires truth. Your assertion that your cat is on the chair asserts it is true the cat is on the chair. What does that mean?

    You've got to define your entire sentence, not just the part you decide to put into quotes. "The cat is on the mat" iff the cat is on the mat. X iff Y. What is Y?

    Or perhaps it is the lack of competent foreplay. — Banno

    Or it's just you enjoy evasiveness and get some rise out of not being open to actual discussion because you think your position so obvious and correct that it's beneath you to have to explain it. That's at least as it seems.
  • Truth
    He's not on the mat. He's on the chair. — Banno

    I just don't understand this. I thought "He's on the chair" iff he's on the chair, but you seem to be using some other method for determining that he's on the chair.

    I think I know what "he's on the chair means" when it has quotes on it. What does it mean to be on the chair without quotes? Is that a reference to metaphysical reality?

    How can I know the truth of whether the cat is on the mat if I don't know what a cat is?
  • Truth
    ↪Banno
    I get that metaphysics is different from epistemology, but epistemology relies upon metaphysics because the T in the JTB is a direct link to what is.

    So, yes, "the cat is on the mat" iff the cat is on the mat, but it's a pretty useless statement if you don't know whether the cat is on the mat.

    Anyway, you pitied me for not knowing the cat was on the mat:

    There is the cat, on the mat, before poor Hanover, and yet he cannot know that the cat is on the mat! — Banno

    I guess I now pity you. Do you know that that the cat is on the mat, or do you just know that the proposition "the cat is on the mat" has a positive truth value if the the cat is on the mat?
  • Truth
    So, your cat is on the mat if you see him on the mat?
    — Hanover

    That's silly. Sometimes he is on the mat, and I'm not even in the house.

    Make your point. If there is one.     — Banno

    The point is that the cat's being on the mat isn't dependent upon your seeing it. That was your point at least.

    As you noted:

    There is the cat, on the mat, before poor Hanover, and yet he cannot know that the cat is on the mat! — Banno

    How do I know the cat is on the mat? Poor Hanover cannot know. What element of JTB am I missing? I have a justification because I see it, and I believe what I see. But is the cat there? All you've said is that the cat is there if it's there. That was really helpful.

    What the hell is the cat and the mat we're speaking of? We've already figured out it's something independent of you, or at least that's what you've said.

    The OP, to remind ourselves, asks what Truth is. When I speak of the cat, and all it's wonderful characteristics, which are true and which are not? It's a metaphysical question ultimately, but I'll agree with that it is whatever it is, which is another way of saying "The cat is on the mat" iff the cat is on the mat.
  • Truth
    Nuh. He's watching the birds out the window. — Banno

    So you see your cat not on your mat? So, your cat is on the mat if you see him on the mat?
  • Truth
    Right now, your cat, your mat. Is your cat on your mat right now? @Banno
  • Truth
    But I have answered that question. "The cat is on the mat" is true exactly when the cat is on the mat. — Banno

    I'm quite certain my question demands a yes, no, or I don't know. You've failed to answer. I've not posited an objection. In asked a question.
  • Truth
    I don't think you have a coherent objection. — Banno

    Is your cat on your mat or not?
  • Truth
    In your house, you have a cat and a mat, right? Is the cat on the mat? — Hanover
  • Truth
    You want something more, that will make "the cat is on the mat" true, beyond the cat's being on the mat. — Banno

    I'm not looking for the definition of when "the cat is on the mat is true. In your house, you have a cat and a mat, right? Is the cat on the mat?
  • Truth
    The cat is on the mat" is true IFF the cat is on the mat — Banno

    I acknowledged that. Scroll up and you'll see. But we've said nothing of whether the cat is on the mat. We've only explained what makes a statement true. I'm my world, truth relates to things outside language.
  • Truth
    It is extraordinary! The extent that those with a philosophical bent will go to deny themselves the obvious. There is the cat, on the mat, before poor Hanover, and yet he cannot know that the cat is on the mat!

    It's delusional.     — Banno

    I didn't claim to be a philosopher, and I'm sure not a scientist, so I must be a theologian. My faith in the cat being on the mat saves me from one form of delusion, but maybe my faith is my highest delusion.

    At any rate, your reference to what you know seems to ignore the question at hand, which is what truth is. You have a justified belief I'm sure, but what does it mean to say it is true the cat is on the mat? Does it just mean you have a really good justification for it and you believe it? As has been alluded to in other posts, is the truth element superfluous? If not, what does it mean?
Home » Hanover