Are you then maintaining that "conformity to what is real" is useless? — javra

I'm with T Clark here. Nothing meets the criteria you're using, without plain supposition. Therefore, for what the word truth is mean to entail, it is useless as a criteria for belief in these terms, imo. I understand the distinction you're making, but the description is what Truth would be, if ascertainable.

I don't think that is true. Yes, some civil services are being dismantled, with a view to restoring them in better (read: more efficient) forms (whether that's doable, actually what's being done, or whether it shakes out that way notwithstanding.. I'm not pro-those policies). So, it's premature and a sign of perhaps prejudgment to assume the negative outcomes as stated.

That said, no, this will not prevent skills and knowledge being handed on to further generations. That doesn't even strike me as a possible outcome. Could you explain?

why justify any belief whatsoever if not to best evidence that the belief is in fact true (i.e., that the belief in fact does conform to that which is real)? — javra

Belief that it is true doesn't rise to knowledge. Justifying that belief seems to be doing the work, and actual Truth not attainable. So, I return to comments about hte uselessness of 'Truth' in that conception. We don't have Truth in any meaningful sense, if any of the discussions of same are to be taken seriously. Claiming that something is true is far, far beyond what JTB does. A 'true' belief, is one which is justified. Gettier cases are the prime example of why the T cannot do the job you want it to.

My side is saying, "belief" already means "I think it's true", and justified means "justified in thinking it's true" — flannel jesus

Nowhere is this is Truth actually present. Just belief in it. So, we're in the same position, epistemically, as a JFB.

A good quote! And unless we're giving credence to religious revelation, I can't see another avenue for use of Truth.

I don't see how it could be, given it's stated separately? Justification is the reason for believing. Not it's veridicality. Also, that is jettisoning Truth from the concept. Not sure what was missed there, tbh. Truth has no use if your takes are to be the way of things. It's a pointless, senseless concept with no referent.

Don't you think you will get wildly different policy answers depending on which side one is on, or what position one has in society? — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, i've scored off this ball earlier. I don't fault you for not seeing it.

This is where a truly rational person cannot escape their faulty thinking once the entailments are laid out (i.e "lets explore where your policy goes" and then, jointly, move down that path discussing any conflicts of fact at each stage). At the very least, you would get a point of 'agree on the goal, disagree on the method' which is totally amicable, and what happens in smaller scales every goddamn day. Why this isn't the case with politics escapes me (well, no, but why rational people haven't pushed the point im pushing here harder).

Yes, you will get different answers, and if you're aiming at the same bulleyes, you can assess any given answer of its actually ability to achieve the goal. If people are paying attention, and they be if they're having that conversation, this is exactly how to bridge the psychological divide.

The T is redundant. — flannel jesus

I think you've missed my point - that is T truth, as far as we could possibly conceive. I dont understand why we would say anything else.. I do think jettisoning truth works better on paper, but it certainly wouldn't be helpful for the general use.

there's no oracle who can tell us if that belief satisfies the T or not. — flannel jesus

Can this be rounded off, though? Are there not cases where you would say, given there is literally no possible further indicator, that something can be secured in it's T-Truth? Say "It is raining right now"? I don't think brain in vat arguments do much to this. We could all be dreaming - so what? Without an indication that's happening, and plenty that it's not, why question?

I would still hold that this is true. But perhaps here Trump's vindictive and outrageous policies are just creating this antidote to populism in a far quicker pace that we could imagine. — ssu

I think probably you're missing that a great number of people do not think your take on his policies are that way. I mean, I can see objectively that some are vindictive, by definition, but that doesn't actually make them bad so people are open to interpret a bit differently.

That said, I think its pretty obvious populism is what people do. There is something to the notion that people crave strong leaders. And most people are not that smart (shame, but true).

Oh, i see where you're going. Thanks for clarifying. Hmm okay, well again, my answer was 'no' so maybe I intuit something similar.

But yeah, life isn't much different to 2019 except prices and a bigger political division. But they were inevitable, temporary consequences to the types of policy changes that happened. We've reset. I think some miss this, and that's why there's such division still. We don't need to argue about masks, so we find other shit like cybertrucks.

I think she's fine. — fdrake

I'm not entirely on Outlander's vibe here, because I think comparing reality to utopia is silly, but nevertheless, I don't think AOC is 'fine'. I would be happy to concede this on a personal ground? LOL. She seems.. nice enough? I don't think she would be fun to be around though.

I see it as a group of people who adopted left wing Twitter etiquette in real life. — fdrake

100%. Some are in government now, by concession it seems, so we may actually have to come to terms with how ridiculous that way of comporting oneself is when it comes to policy. AOC in a policy-making position comes to mind.

I fail to see any reason to answer to such a weird charge in the fullness with which you've laid it out.

My answer to the direct question is "no". But this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the position of mine you've quoted to reply to. Quite weird.

What would you recommend for dialogue with people who seem to be playing checkers with a chess set? — Jeremy Murray

Ignore them. They are not playing hte game. And they know it. That's why the 'woke' don't actually get much truck. You'll never see a screaming blue-haired, chain-wearing trans woman(purposefully inflammatory, to paint a picture, to be sure) having a serious ethical discussion with heads of state, or anything of the kind. People will real interests in unity and getting along don't behave those ways, and we don't allow them to. We allow concessions, the way we do with children. Yes, i'm being sanguine, but i don't think too far from reality.

It always does. Hume doesn't scare me.

We go through these changes. We're in a stable enough civilisation. I don't see any reason to think it wont. Reagan was probably thought of this way. As would have Lincoln been in his time. As will future Presidents. I cannot see that this is in any way that matters, a special case. Call me ignorant if you want (not you, personally) - I don't think so after quite careful, and long-term (what, nine years now?) consideration. That term includes the evidence for what I'm saying. If Biden's term wasn't the same type of threat, then this isn't one.

There is no second doubter who needs to be satisfied if the first one is okay — Paine

Bang on. The content of your thoughts is brute. Whether its veridical, we can discuss.

focusing on the extremists, in any direction, as if they are informative of average people, is needless division. — Jeremy Murray

This is it. We should do what's been discussed in some recent forum feedback - ignore. When they get louder, as they inevitably will, laws will be broken and the movement disbanded. Unfortunately, the middle-ground of intelligence (i.e about 40% of people in the middle) think the media is accurate.

I think everyone's got good things going on in these comments.

It seems we're all on the same page of not treating anyone differently based on their sex - I guess, an issue here, is that feminine men present some other issue to discuss, as do masculine women (in terms of temperament supposedly leading to public action).

Yes, i agree with that. There's a clear area on the spectrum of 'masculine' behaviour which is pernicious and destructive. Equally with feminine behaviour (again, acknowledging that the important difference is that the in former case, people tend to die - hte latter, they kill themselves (this is a bit of jest)).

100% true. That's not to ignore the disproportionate results of each.

Both the concept of a house and the representation of a particular house exist in the mind, and in this sense are not utterly separate, as both exist in the mind. — RussellA

Yes, true, but the concept filled with sense data (in the IDR sense) is not synonymous with the concept. It's a particular, modified expression of the concept in a Platonic sort of way, i think. They do both exist in the mind, but one has been triggered by (physical) information from outside the mind. THe other is a rehashing of some of our oldest data. I would not think these the same.

Fair enough. Neither am I, but that's because we're on a philosophy forum. If i was, in earnest, charged with carrying a motivation of consolidating my 'power' (I don't have any, ftr) I would definitely bristle. It's an incorrect and incredibly damaging thing to charge someone with, if taken seriously. Ironically, it is patently sexist and misandrist nonsense, which has become widespread.

Actually, this does remind me: I was falsely accused of rape at the age of 16. I was raped at the age of 18. Can you guess how each of these scenarios went? I'm sure you can. And both occasions, sexism and assumptions about me qua male only informed everyone's reactions and how I was treated. Absolutely abhorrent levels of hate, based on my sex. In both scenarios. I cannot overlook this for rhetoric around how women are so hard done-by. It wasn't even illegal to rape a minor male in my country until 2006.

It'll be quite interesting to see how these threads go when, in say six years time, shit's the same. No disaster, no world war, no collapse of society... Wonder how we will deal with that.

Can anyone explain to me how the fear of (else the roundabout concern that) “women are taking over and are destroying the core of masculinity” is in fact not a communal projection of personally held aspirations by a certain male faction in society, one composed of individuals that themselves desire to be domineering over all others - women very much here included as those whom they deem themselves entitled to subjugate? — javra

I don't know a single person who could take this as anything other than an insult to their morality (restrict this to males I know). No, that's not a fact - but in response to your question, I dont recognise this as even a tacitly motivating factor. It may be something totally unnoticed by most men (i.e, that their power exists, and whatever they're doing unfortunately promotes it) but that its a 'projection' of some intent to keep power is patently ridiculous when applied to the majority of men outside of boards and governments (even then, most are literally working day-in-day-out to promote women and women's rights - current administration notwithstanding, given they're not the totality of politicians by a long shot, in that one country).

A much bigger and better question is why we don't care that most of hte world is out-right misogynistic and violently so, with the backing of the law? What does the West have that these other cultures don't? No idea. Probably an attempt to dispose of arbitrary rules (read: an attempt to jettison religion) but that's not a very serious note I'm ending on.

Is the occurrence of "masculinity" of itself contingent on there existing "a weaker sex"? — javra

I doubt it, unless you mean physically. Femininity isn't inherently 'weak' other than physically.
That in mind, It's simply stupid to argue that a. men and women don't significantly differ in average strength, and b. that this isn't extremely important to intersexual relations/relationships. Even removing all arbitrary uses of force, this will remain one the most fundamental differences and motivation factors for the inevitably different approaches the sexes take to each other, overall. Though, I do think a belief that this extends to psychology and emotional maturity/intelligence has been a significant and embarrassingly shit motivation for, at the least, bad expressions of masculinity.

I also uphold that "if there will be a war between the sexes, there'll be no people left". This pretty much summing up my own view. — javra

My position is that htis is utterly preposterous and the only foreseeable outcome of that kind of war would be a return to the physical subjugation of women, globally.

I'm a bisexual man, but a fairly 'masculine' one, it seems. I don't recognise the vast majority of accusations laid at the feet of 'masculinity'. Why not just acknowledge that some people are total assholes? Women are just as capable of being pernicious and socially destructive. The difference is men hurt people physically whcih must be accounted for - but the principle does not change. Both sexes are capable of 'sexed' behaviour which is utterly toxic and destructive to society.

There is 100% inarguably an over-assumption of the intent of men to rape women, and the actual number of people who do this (or, sexually assault them in any way that speaks to intent - this is, in my experience and knowledge, equal between the sexes, but for some reason if both are drunk he's the bad guy.. go figure).
This isn't to ignore the facts. Which is ironic, considering the thread.

To answer OP, I think it is folly to assume they were not. But I would defer to takes like Mill's, which points out that most women were, at least to some degree, willing participants due to centuries of indoctrination and then in each individual female, their lot was given to them via education and the wisdom of their parents - furthering that participation by coercion.
This all to say, we wouldn't have much evidence, despite javra's references, that consistent and constant sexual assault occurred, as it has everywhere we have ever documented it (though, it shouldn't really be needed, but around here it tends to be: This does not speak against my opening point. It speaks to the well-known fact that extremes of violence and rights-interference is almost solely the domain of a specific, small group men.).

I don't think many people outside of the types of chambers in which these one-sided conversations happen would recognise a lot of the OP as accurately describing much about htem, their views, or what they want for hte world/society. Makes it tough going to even get off that post something that can be adequately responded to without sounding off topic. So here we are. Sounding off topic.

Edit: Having read a couple pages now, I see nothing reasonable was going to come out of this. Sigh.

Yes. Without doubt. That does not mean I don't, overall, enjoy my life. I have an interest in continuing to exist. But, having never existed seems to me the best version of reality.

Thank you Tom :) Hope you're well over the ditch!

Genuinely worried you're mentally ill. I am not being disingenuous. Your behaviour mirrors my bipolar brother. I will refrain from further comment , leaving this as reasoning for same.

I tried that too! @T Clark

Let's see if that works..

Probably hte main read-across is that his conception of how media works (if correct) should mean Republicans never read it, and instead have these types of conversations.
Weirdly, I think republicans are better at starting this conversation - but being widely religious and/or impervious to reason in the specific context of arguing their views with dissidents who see them in a bad light they fail to follow through with finding the common ground I want to find.

Democrats (card carrying, lets say) shouldn't read the media either, because they tend to not accept that the conversation is legitimate, and that all those opposed are moral monsters. The media confirms this. Neither position is helpful, and largely is just the narrative media spins about each group, to each group - I.e almost wholly inaccurate.

I think his point on Oligarchy per se (buying power) in light of democracy is far more apt that probably anyone wants to accept for their own side too - if people could speak about avoiding things like this, we'd have a better conversation about what policies to implement.

"drain the swamp" wouldn't have been a joke to Democrats if they accepted tehir party is incredibly corrupt too but republicans wouldn't have made it a joke if they'd accept it about theirs. Without the cross-party (socially speaking, not politically speaking) conversations about shared goals are essential to avoid constantly talking to bumper stickers instead of arguments.

No, not futile, but dangerous when assumed to be objective. But, this supposes I have a moral belief "people should not think morality is objective" which would defeat the view I actually hold (similar, very similar, to T Clark (who I cannot tag?).

Yes, all moral systems are flawed (comments to the opposite seem... silly. Where's the flawless moral system you think exists?). That doesn't render them futile. It just, again, makes it dangerous to pretend they are flawless.

That one ought not kick puppies is a reason for you to stop others kicking puppies. "One ought not kick puppies" is different to "Boo puppy kicking". — Banno

No, it really is not. "one ought not kick puppies" means "I think one ought not kick puppies". Nothing more. It means the speaker believes it to be true, referring to nothing further.

Also surely, yes. I would want a system of court order to create the avenue to do the deed, as it were.
I'm also not entirely sure it's going to help. Quite a number of beneficiaries (potentially a majority) are dishonest about their income, out going and circumstance. These things would create other crimes which could be adequately seen to without the above suggestion.

Happy to agree to disagree.

Noting that if that wasn't your reason for posting, I may have inadvertently mislead you, I find your conclusion there bizarre. We should be positive about any instances of finding common ground and understanding, I think.

We may not need to see eye-to-eye, but that's true of literally any two individuals. Policies cannot be adequately discussed without assessing goals first. Point blank period. Ignoring this will ensure you cannot have a reasonable conversation about policy.

Don't ask me why someone who can afford a Tesla is driving for LYFT, but nonetheless — BC

Second-hand Teslas are quite affordable and often come with off-sets, making a business purchase quite viable. The rest of that sounds a whinge.

With a better reason than 'reasonable suspicion', yes. No one who benefits from the state should have a carte blanche on funds they receive from the state.

I have a disabled wife, and we've had similar things happen (though, they have not gone into bank accounts) which has left us in terrible circumstances. But it was correct to do so. We were overpaid.

Haha, possibly. I think they do, they just aren't ones you'd agree with. Mostly, not ones i'd agree with either. THough, this actually raises my point to much more clarity: If I am right, it is much easier to point out to Republicans how their government is not moving toward their goals.

One of the main goals will allways be — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think this is a fair, or reasonable thing to say, no matter what comes next.
I don't think you'll get this answer from anyone having this discussion. That, again, would make it very clear when their actions align with this goal rather than others that they might profess.

The space for alignment of goals and policies is already restricted by ideologies and the political process, is what i'm getting at. — ChatteringMonkey

But again, this absolutely ignores what I'm saying: Sure, to stop it. Start by having this discussion. It is not possible for ideology to get in the way of this. All it can do is leave someone bereft of answers, and egg on their face. Not that this works in all cases, but it has almost universally allowed me to find common ground and understanding with people who's chosen polices are in the negative column, for me.

This seems all an argument trying to say I don't understand language. — prothero

No, no. While I'm not sure how you got that, really, it was not my intention at all. I do think you're using words in an incoherent fashion, but that's not to say you don't know this. Most people like to do so, and it doesn't seem to get in the way of much. I am just telling you where it's causing me problems.

try "prehension" for the idea instead but you will likely have to look it up. — prothero

It seems I'm one of the only posters who has read Process and Reality. LOL.

Where in the chain of nature do you speculate mind begins or ends? — prothero

I don't think this is a particularly good question. I don't know how to answer it. I doubt anyone does. A brain seems to imply a mind. That's all I can give you. I don't 'believe' anything on this front.

Neither consciousness. Whenever a being has a subjective experience, they are conscious. That's the best I can give you *shrug*. I can't think of a more helpful use of that word. You may be able to. Yours, to me, seems very unhelpful (eg by folding jellyfish and insects into the 'conscious' category it overlaps with others and just further muddies the waters we're trying to clear).

I don't think they are related, per se. We can have an ultimately meaningless universe and still note things which push toward, or away from, flourishing. What that means is the problem.