That there are things which "be". That implies non-being and so the question (i.e the question why there is something) is entirely apt. Further, once we see that question is apt (even if unanswerable) we have to do one of two things:
1. Bite the bullet that there has never been 'nothing' (ignoring the blatant contradiction in terms there lol. I didn't invent them!); or
2. Bite the bullet that if there is "something" and "nothing" is implied, we should expect it to obtain (or, the opposite of obtain lol).

This is fully intelligible, and gives us pause as to why there's something. If there is something, when was there nothing? Previously in time is hte only available inference it seems.

I too, find the questions boring, though.

It's possible someone else asked, and some answer was given, but i'm personally interested in how you get from "stuff" to "blocks" without already playing the game? I say that because this seems to divorce objects from the language about them while using language about them.
That doesn't seem quite available here?

I don't think its a creativity issue. I think its an aesthetic issue. Most academic philosophy these days is technical, dry and concerned with minutiae because most big concepts have been "done to death" as they say.

There's plenty of creativity going, I think. Bunch of work on AI and that type of consciousness/learning stuff. Less, but still some stuff about causation, process v semantics etc.. Some of it is quite cool, and interesting to someone like me. But I imagine its totally uninteresting to a lot of even professional philosophers and so is considered uncreative.

No, I think you've done what often happens: read a paragraph into a sentence, not clarify anything, and then go on as if everything is clear. No guff there, it happens. I'm sure I do it - but its unhelpful.

It seems you don't even know what I'm saying, here. I'm not sure why you're responding the way you are, in that sense. Why not ask something? Harry (and MU) has a good point, but that wasn't the one I was aiming for. Do we want to discuss these things, or make drive-by shots on each other? I, for one, would rather an opportunity to elucidate, if you're not getting me. It seems you're not. I'm then going to assume you want to know, so:

You make an (in my view) unsupportable claim. I objected. Your response was again, brute claim. Your response to me (admittedly glib, but I was under the impression "in good fun") was to say this:

So the topic is "On Matter, Meaning, and the Elusiveness of the Real", yet you claim that pointing out that what is real is right there before you is irrelevant. — Banno

This isn't a response to what I said. It's a description, impugning what I said. That's bad faith. The bold is your position. You hold it. That's fine. It doesn't do anything for anyone who doesn't hold it. It also isn't particularly on point for what I actually said. So, lets begin something less glib..My position:

The world is often not as we expect or can tell at first glance. This has been true for hte entirety of human history.

As I noted. Are you arguing against this premise?

This is false. Those two phrases are, plainly, self-explanatory. This is not meant to be rude, but do you need them explained? If so, I cannot see this going anywhere. Are you confusing "belief" with "state of affairs" in this context? If so, I cannot see tihs going anywhere. I do not know what you need clarifying, here.

If not, I cannot see how you are running this line, in good faith. I've presented arguments, and reasoning for all of what I've said (and have reviewed two of substantive exchanges to confirm). That you either don't engage, or don't understand doesn't seem to me something I have to answer to. I've even reiterated an re-posted plainly relevant passages for ease. These appear to be ignored also. It is twilight zone stuff to be charged with something like this:

You very seldom give reasons or arguments for your positions. — Leontiskos

This is, to put it mildly, bullshit.

If you want to PM about what is (in my view) a clear troll on your part, I'm open. Otherwise, it's best we avoid each other to avoid the requirement of impugning each other in a way that violates forum etiquette (though, apparently this does not apply to many other posters).

LOL yeah, seems so.

I don't think its worth it. The boil-down is this:

Words literally cause mindstates, when heard in certain contexts. Those mindstates are considered irresistible in some circumstances. Those mindstates are either supervenient or overwhelmingly causative of the actions in question. This is a causal chain which is morally brought back to the inciter.

He doesn't get this. It's hard to see where 'reason' would come in if so.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/a-medical-student-s-anger-toward-america-s-health-care-system-with-similarities-to-luigi-mangione-s-case-led-him-to-shoot-a-doctor-police-say/ar-AA1HglDd?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=7cbbca9f02b74a10a2a3935c652422ab&ei=6

Why oh why does the left do this to itself. Dysregulated children should not be fronting any type of social movement.

This seems far, far, far more to do with cultural novelty than any indication of some natural proclivity.

That's right Mikie. We're all racist. All actions are racist. Anyone who doesn't look like us is an enemy. It's definitely nothing but racism. Mhmm.

Supposedly Life On Mars and Your Song (Bowie, John respectively) also. I don't quite buy it myself, but that would be something awesome to know.

Really? "Because it isn't," is probably not going to be satisfactory to anyone, anywhere. What everyone, everywhere, will want is a reason why. — Leontiskos

"Why isn't this tshirt Green?"

Right-o.

Can you delineate what you mean by "the state of affairs," and what you mean by, "the belief"? — Leontiskos

They are, quite clearly, self explanatory, so I don't want to come across an ass and just state them again. They are self-explanatory, and cannot be confused on their own terms. If you are confusing a state of affairs with a belief in the state of affairs, I do not know where to go... That is bizarre and unfortunate, if so.

The fellow believes Trump dyed his hair. Is his belief false? — Leontiskos

Yes. I have explained this explicitly above, to the degree that this feels like outright trolling:

The state of affairs, and the belief in it, are not the same thing and are not falsified the same way. Any belief can be falsified without looking at the state of affairs, as I see it. I will simply repeat what you've quoted to round out:

The error being that a failure to support one's belief doesn't entail the state of affairs being false. It does, however, directly entail that your belief in the state of affairs is false.
— AmadeusD — AmadeusD

You're not saying anything relevant.

It seems some are just unable to see the forest. Trees be damned.

The fact that you replied to me shows that the world is pretty much as it seems. — Banno

The absolute lack of anything meaningful here, says no (and that's on your terms lmao).

In truth the security apparatus hasn't been biased as the partisan commentators always persist. — ssu

A certainly agree.

No, and no. That's evidenced perfectly by the entire history of humanity not knowing what the fuck is going on, because it isn't as it seems.

Just on the final bit here, which is crucial: Intolerance is as it sounds: a lack of tolerance.
Preference, in contrast, is just a preference. 'I prefer chocolate to vanilla" =/= "I cannot stand vanilla; it makes me sick and my psychology is sent awry by it"

Because "as it seems to be" is rarely the case, from a human perspective. Far more instances of that assumption failing that otherwise, as I see it.

We are already morally bankrupt — unenlightened

I would recommend speaking for yourself :P

R.I.P Vera.

I think maybe people are not understanding the definition of violence? — Ourora Aureis

Do you mean "your" definition? For the vast, vast majority of people violence is harmful force. That seems the definition too. For that reason, its possible similar things are being said in different terms. I would never call the enforcement, through proper channels, of a law, "violence" without some discussion about (for instance) resisting arrest leading to violent police behaviour. So seem to agree, but then claim:

It should be considered the same type of violence that enforces taxes and all other laws. — Ourora Aureis

Like... what the fuck lol. They are not, in any way, equivalent.

I personally dont have a reason for disliking certain genres, I just dont resonate with them. — Ourora Aureis

Which shows that this is not intolerance, its discrimination. Which is totally fine.

Arbitrary Intolerances don't seem to be that inappropriate at all, because they're simply expressions of ones emotions rather than beliefs. — Ourora Aureis

I don't thikn you're adequately hearing the word 'intolerance' which is a visceral, "absolutley not" type of feeling. Not just a preference.

Clearly we believe expressions of sexual preference to be okay, so I fail to see why this should be different on non-sexual grounds. — Ourora Aureis

Well, it is fine. Discriminating, even in bad-taste ways (eg preferring one's own ethnic group) is fine and generally allowed in law and socially. It eventually gets to a point of being arbitrary (like requiring a Dcotor to be of a certain ethnicity for instance) and that's where people don't get on with it, and the law tends to step in. This has changed slightly recently, in a way I disagree with. Some claims of this kind are now allowed in law, but only for certain groups and often to the detriment of others.

wrong to dismiss certain intolerant expressions outright as it presumes they have no requisite reasons. — Ourora Aureis

I agree. Discussion is required. That's how you figure out if something is arbitrary. I am not an absolutist, but I am far more toward absolutism than some of the censorious forms advocated in this thread.

The important factor there being that empirical arguments can be argued for and against with evidence, rather than being entirely normative claims like DasGegenmittel suggested. — Ourora Aureis

This is definitely true, and perhaps people like that simply don't want to have that conversation. Too fucking bad imo. You live in the world. Have the conversation. Grow up.

Why isn't this just the fallacy of denying the antecedent? — Leontiskos

Because it isn't. Not sure what else you could want in response to that. It's my pointing out there you're confusing two separate conclusions which rely on separate reasoning within the example.

Perfect. In your example the state of affairs isn't false (jury is out, as it were, as described) but the belief is clearly false.

The state of affairs, and the belief in it, are not the same thing and are not falsified the same way. Any belief can be falsified without looking at the state of affairs, as I see it. I will simply repeat what you've quoted to round out:

The error being that a failure to support one's belief doesn't entail the state of affairs being false. It does, however, directly entail that your belief in the state of affairs is false. — AmadeusD

I do not understand how, after the above, the argument you're making can be made. You could tell me this conception is wrong and we can talk about that, but your reasoning simply isn't apt anymore. Perhaps the above makes this more explicit..

Ahh I see what you're saying. Well, I think that's hyperbolic to a comic degree, but your core point elucidated here is apt. Thank you.

By way of example, things like brotherly love or love for ethnic peers without any personal relationship. Solidarity being some a priori "love" type claim which rests on anything other than direct personal affection.

I never suggested they weren't. I think its hilarious that those numbers are what they are, yet we're pissing into the wind over Trump deporting X people. Obviously, his tactics are the issue so best to not make shit up about illegal immigrants rights to stay in the USA (others, not you).

An "Us vs Them" mentality, as seen between MAGA and anyone that doesn't agree with them (such as democrats, liberals, the LGBTQ+ community, etc.). — Samael Isn't

You have to do some dilligence here: That is exactly how it looks from the otherside. Most people feel (and people like myself fall in here - who are decidedly left-wing in a box-ticking sense, and have never voted right of center in their lives) feel that there is a quite clear, and inarguable ideological situation in which disagreeing with any aspect of a rather complicated set of policy settings around LGBTQI+ etc... issues is somehow tantamount to being a disgusting bigot, and one must be ostracised, humiliated and made to feel as if they are somehow responsible for others mental health. Which is utter, abject horseshit and rests largely on the 'feelings' of some young, mentally unstable people.

So, I'm not dismissing that your take is hte case for those who take the ideology on hook-line-sinker. But for those who even tacitly disagree, there is some serious consequence mirroring fascist dictates far more readily than any disagreement with right-wing rhetoric seems to cause. That's a bit of a nuance convo though, as you're tyring to have about immigration specifically.

I still can't quite grok what you're saying. The reason is this:

If you say you are against illegal immigrant, you cannot be detained or held responsible for someone who you don't know killing illegal immigrants in another state. — ssu

There is absolutely no argument that could justify that you should be detained or held responsible (on your example, that is. Obviously circumstances can exist to meet that burden).

Being part of an identifiable group doesn't seem to lead to much anyway: Antifa, BLM etc... all carried out serious, violent terroristic actions, but other members were never called up and hte groups were not designated (this being political bias, obviously, but that's not quite relevant to my clarifying what's going on here.

Unrelated:
I see Vance was banned from Bluesky for specifically political reasons. Very Democractic :P

I'm not sure what that could mean.

The practical problem is that males shouldn't be in intimate spaces with females, regardless of their personal beliefs about themselves. I'm no threat to women in bathrooms either, you see.

The incompetence comes from trying to accommodate both of those aspects.

A bunch of two-dimensional semantics papers.

we are losing the whole Western World every time that we fight for Israel — Eros1982

Good lord. Can you perhaps support this a bit?

One problem is that such therapy can't be delayed for 20 or 30 years and still be effective — BC

Real big problem. Emotional dysregulation is something that's extremely hard to overcome. As I understand, having no example of some fundamental behaviour prior to the age of four roughly precludes that from being assimilated.

I, for one, think immigrations laws should be enforced. The rest is window dressing on both sides. Who cares, other than the damage and violence (which both are carrying out). Meh. Swings and roundabouts. We'll be in the next cycle soon enough.

Not in the terms here bandied about. Love seems to be some emergent property of affectionate relationships. That said, there seem forms of 'love' which are not actually to do with affection, and to do with some "solidarity" notion. Hence, far too amorphous.

I really don't know what you're getting at here. I've said its an error in terms. More specifically:

"P is not true," without going all the way to, "P is false." — Leontiskos

These are the same claims (the two in quotes). P is false. The "solve" you want isn't apt, as far as I'm concerned. P is false at "~R".

The error being that a failure to support one's belief doesn't entail the state of affairs being false. It does, however, directly entail that your belief in the state of affairs is false. Hence "Gettierrrrr (with bells and whistles)".

The fragility of people’s psyche and mental health I find baffling. Maybe philosophy needs to step up a bit in the modern world and give a bit of guidance — Malcolm Parry

I think this is a bit of 'curse of knowledge'.
I've outlined elsewhere that my Wife and I, having come up against this ssame confusion, realise that we must be in some "upper" group when it comes to self-reliance, will and problem solving. It seems most people are in the 'lower' group. This creates a picture of hte world which is either:

1. Entirely baffling, and unhelpful; or
2. One in which "I" (whoever is speaking) is somehow "superior" intellectually/emotionally to most people.

Neither seems 'good', but the latter seems 'true'. And in that light, it's not longer baffling to us (and the few friends who we've laid that out to - no one disagrees lol just varying degrees of discomfort (which I concur with))

Or are you going to say that it's just a one off lone nut? Well, political violence is and has to be a "lone nut" thing, because otherwise if there's really a terrorist cell, an organization behind the act of violence, then the Police and the security apparatus will spring to life. — ssu

I can't quite see whether you're trying to say that htis means its not a 'lone nut' or that it's somehow problematic that the security apparatus don't treat lone nuts like terror cells. I don't hold you to either, though.

Suffice to say, lone nuts are lone nuts. The optics aren't relevant. Plenty of left-wing psychos out there.

My intuitive answer would be this is incoherent.

If the belief is 'not true' then the belief is false. Even if there's some way to jigger the state of affairs to not yet be 'false'. It's just an error in terms (would be my answer).

for the expression of certain beliefs — Ourora Aureis

I would want to say no one has advocated for this. Anywhere in the thread.

but certain types of intolerance while others are considered perfectly fine or even good. — Ourora Aureis

Yep. Arbitrary intolerance is not. Intolerance which has a requisite reason can always be argued for. This, for example, would go toward an argument for banning burqas etc... on transparency grounds.

This goes to the previous - no one thinks arbitrary restrictions on speech are a good move (unless, eg, truly racist in which case X group shouldn't speak for arbitrary (but orthogonal) reasons).

We've had a decent exchange. There shouldn't be tension read into anything I've said.

My point was actually more (I think) to do with that this claim doesn't quite fit with your previous posts.

There are many pressures in life and you may live in a conservative part of the world but what social norms are you pressured into? How is this any different to anyone else? — Malcolm Parry

Why would it need to be different? Some people are more resilient to social pressure than others. Probably that note between Michael and yourself speaks to this, but some people are emotionally not able to deal with it. I, personally, think this is why the hard left exists. The fear of 'leaving' when you realise how batshit a lot of those views are is real.

Why? — Jeremy Murray

I have been over this. It's becoming really frustrating(not you personally - but note if anything seems terse, it's not on purpose):

You can massage any action to be pulling you toward virtue. Catholics condemning gays as a way of trying to directed them away from Hell would be virtuous to them. Allowing each individual to simply shoehorn 'virtue' in to their moral system is extremely dangerous. It may be why its so popular - it requires next to no critical thinking and practically no self-accountability. There are those who do it 'properly' as such. But the dangers are so much heavier than the potential benefits.

We aspire to improve — Jeremy Murray

Which is a totally subjective, easily-hijacked concept. I'm am uncomfortable with it, as a moral motivator. "Don't hurt people if you can avoid it" for instance, seems both demonstrably better, and easier to follow. "Aspire" without content is empty anyway, so I guess my gripe is a little premature. Its not even a decently-actionable concept without the "toward virtue" aspect which I've gone over.

I see a kind of moral laziness in relativism, or at least, relativism-by-default. — Jeremy Murray

I understand what you're saying, but there are no arguments which support anything else as, at least, a metaethical way of framing things (well, none i've seen - and the papers objecting to relativism appear some of the worst i've seen get published (Carlo Alvaro for instance). Intuitively, this is my exact position. Intellectually, it is clearly bankrupt (on my view).

This sense of morality being 'thinking the right things' seems dangerously omnipresent at the moment. — Jeremy Murray

Ding ding (on my view). This is absolutely the correct objection to that type of relativism (which isn't relativism, it's just self-involvement; not a serious moral thought to be found in those types).

Again, I'm not formally trained, but aren't these three moral systems the primary moral systems, generally speaking? What system, if any, would you endorse? — Jeremy Murray

Yeah pretty much. There's essentially four equal parts in professional philosophy.. roughly like 25% deontology (or some form of); 25% some form of consequentialism; 25% Virtue Ethics (its slightly higher for VE actually, i'm just simplifying) and the final slice for "alternate". So i"m not exactly in bad company.

I don't really have a 'system'. What I think its 'right' applies to me and only me. I can try to enforce this where i think it is relevant but I am under no illusions that I should be persuasive, or be listened to. I do not expect anyone else to embody my moral thinking which is case-by-case. I do not have 'principles' as I do not think morality is actionable under principles without so much leeway they become pointless 'starting points'. For which we can use intuition anyway.