But they're not just names. These are actual, mind-independent objects, according to permissivists. Fouts exist just as much as your kitchen table does. You don't notice their existence because they're irrelevant to your ordinary life. But they're out there, in the world, not just in our thoughts or language.

I would put it this way: "not all ways are equally correct." For example, I claim that dogs and trout exist as discrete things, organic wholes, in the world. Their existence is not a merely linguistic fact; it is not dependent on linguistic conventions. By contrast, non-continuous trout halves and fox halves combined into "fouts" can certainly be named as "objects," but they do not have the same ontological status as proper wholes, such as trout and foxes. Do you disagree with that? — Count Timothy von Icarus

As you already know (but perhaps other forum members don't), metaphysical permissivists do indeed disagree with that. They claim that fouts exist, just as dogs and trouts do. And objectively so, they exist independently of language and thought. If there were no human beings, fouts would still exist. The only difference between them and ordinary objects is that they're extraordinary objects. The permissivist answer to the Debunking Argument is simply that there's nothing particularly impressive about our ways of dividing up the world into objects: we simply pick up on the ordinary ones while we usually ignore the extraordinary ones. Shorter: there is an object answering to every conceivable way of dividing the world into objects, no matter how capricious or bizarre such divisions are. There is an object composed of the trout's left eye and the dog's right paw. There is an object composed of the trout's stomach and the dog's nose. There is an object composed of the trout's brain and the dog's tongue. And so forth. It sounds insane, and it is (to my mind, at least). So why do they uphold such crazy views? Because if there's good arguments against metaphysical conservatism (and permissivists believe that there are), then the only serious rival to permissivism is metaphysical eliminativism. And, by permissivist lights, if we need to embrace the idea that extraordinary objects exist, in order to secure the existence of ordinary objects (contra the eliminativists), then it's an idea well worth embracing. Shorter: it's better to have both trouts and fouts, instead of not having either.

(slightly edited)

They did use democratic means, such as elections and voting, at least until they achieved absolute power. — NOS4A2

My point is that once they achieve absolute power, the use of democratic means necessarily weakens the fascist nature of the state. Conversely, it precipitates its transformation into a representative democracy. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You either have a fascist state or a democratic one.

Again, the point is to use it to service the state, and then perhaps be done with when it is no longer required. — NOS4A2

Be done with what, with the democratic means or with the fascist state itself?

Those are not the original posters though, they're derivatives.

Yup, I understood your point.

Sure, there's a mismatch between what Stalin said and what he actually did. Same as Mussolini: there's a mismatch between what he said and what he actually did. My comment was intended as a parity argument against 's argument in favor of Rocco. My point was precisely thus: just because someone was actively involved in the development of X, that doesn't entail that the person in question can't be wrong about X.

Unless they use all of the devices in service to the Fascist state. — NOS4A2

Let's consider the case of democratic means, to focus on just one example. What would remain of the fascist state if the means of representative democracy were to be the norm? Suppose Mussolini is effectively the Duce. Now suppose that presidential elections are held. And suppose that John Doe gets more votes than Mussolini. Suppose further that, after being elected, John Doe & company (as in, legislators, senators, etc.) carry out a series of reforms such that Fascist Country X starts to look more and more like the United States of America. What remains of the fascist state then, as envisioned by Mussolini, Rocco, and others? Nothing remains of it.

This indifference to method often exposes Fascism to the charge of incoherence on the part of superficial observers, who do not see that what counts with us is the end and that therefore even when we employ the same means we act with a radically different spiritual attitude and strive for entirely different results.

This is just wishful thinking. It's like Stalin's wishful thinking of Socialism In One Country.

The Fascist concept then of the nation, of the scope of the state, and of the relations obtaining between society and its individual components, rejects entirely the doctrine which I said proceeded from the theories of natural law developed in the course of the XVI, XVII, and XVIII centuries and which form the basis of the liberal, democratic, and socialistic ideology.

Nothing but daydreams.

Lay down your souls to the gods' rock 'n roll.

A bit off the topic, but Swedes had similar policies. I think we Finns didn't, because we were looked down upon as Mongols by the Swedish racists of the 19th and early 20th Century. But that's history... a lot changed in Europe after the demise of the Third Reich, as you know.

What is hilarious in the present discourse only accepts the American juxtaposition of natives against white "colonial" thinking in how that doesn't fit to the Sámi. The Sámi look exactly like Finns, you wouldn't at all in any way differ them from Finns. The Sámi have their large share of blue eyed and blonds so it ridiculous for them to have to talk about Finns "whites". And the "clash" between the Finns and the Sámi happened I guess in Antiquity when there simply was no Finnish country (as Finnish tribes fought each other until the Middle Ages), so the idea of native people/colonizers is funny in the case of Lapland. And the Sami as actually so few here, far less than people in Greenland. — ssu

Would it be fair to say that Norway and Sweden (and to a lesser extent, Finland) carried out fascist policies against the Sámi people? Maybe there's few native people today in Lapland because those are the ones that weren't forcefully assimilated.

Rocco and Stalin? Rocco is wrong to suppose that fascism can be pragmatic (i.e., "using in its political praxis now liberal ways, now democratic means and at times even socialistic devices") and still be fascism. If it uses democratic means, then it turns into a democracy. If it uses socialist devices, then it turns into socialism.

In Stalin's case, he was wrong to suppose (to use just one example) that socialism could thrive and survive in one country. It couldn't. The USSR eventually ditched socialism and turned into modern-day Russia.

Sure, the guy who helped developed fascism is wrong about fascism. — NOS4A2

Of course he is. Just as Stalin, the guy who helped develop socialism, is wrong about socialism.

Sounds like Rocco is wrong. You might as well quote Julius Evola, if those are your academic standards.

So fascism could be liberal one day and socialist the next. — NOS4A2

Nah.

I knew it as a general economic principle, sure. I didn’t know Mussolini used the phrase once in a speech or in a poster. — NOS4A2

It was one of his most important speeches. How else would someone like my grandmother know about it? She wasn't the most knowledgeable or educated person in the world. So how is it that she knew about it, but you didn't? The posters in question were widely distributed throughout Italy. In your investigations about fascism, you never stumbled across this?

So thanks for that. — NOS4A2

You're welcome.

I’m genuinely surprised that there aren’t more quotes, despite you saying there were several. — NOS4A2

Your own quotes don't count?

Benito Mussolini's fascist regime distributed posters with the message "Butter or cannoni?" — Arcane Sandwich

Did you at least know about the posters?

Yeah, I was specifically looking for quotes about fascism, by fascists, not a general phrase used by a multitude of politicians across many ideologies. — NOS4A2

Mussolini famously used it in his 1938 speech at Belluno. He was a fascist, who used that phrase in a fascist sense. Your unawareness of this, which is something that even my grandmother knew, is genuinely surprising.

Obviously, it's a phrase that has been used by other politicians, besides Mussolini. Here's an analysis from Investopedia, here's an article by ThoughtCo titled Guns or Butter: The Nazi Economy, and here's an academic article published in a peer-reviewed journal titled Food Discourses and Alimentary Policies in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany: A Comparative Analysis

For someone so interested in fascism, I find it strange that you weren't familiar with the "guns or butter" (alternatively, "butter or cannons") thing.

"Guns and Butter" describes the government allocation to defense spending versus social programs. A country's budget includes military programs for national security, or guns, and social programs such as Social Security or family assistance, the butter. Politicians have evolved the phrase "guns and butter" for use in all areas of fiscal budgeting where there is a substantial trade-off between defense and social spending.

The term "guns and butter" has been linked throughout history to the challenges of war and negotiations on defense spending. Its uses have varied from guns and butter, guns vs. butter, and guns or butter. Many trace the coining of the phrase to the beginning of World War I and the protesting resignation of Secretary of State William Bryan. — Investopedia

With the economy improving and doing well (low unemployment, strong investment, improved foreign trade) the question of ‘Guns or Butter’ began to haunt Germany in 1936. Schacht knew that if rearmament continued at this pace the balance of payments would go crippling downhill, and he advocated increasing consumer production to sell more abroad. Many, especially those poised to profit, agreed, but another powerful group wanted Germany ready for war. — ThoughtCo

‘Guns before butter’ meant that food shortages were already present from the mid-1930s onwards. As Nancy Reagin has shown, preparations for war ‘led to economic policies that often worked against civilian consumers’ interests’. The quality of butter and cheese declined, and there was an increase in the use of inferior vegetable fats to create new fat compounds. By the winter of 1936–1937, shopkeepers sold butter only to their regular customers. Eating patterns changed. — Patrizia Sambuco and Lisa Pine

I suppose it counts now, after the fact. — NOS4A2

It's a famous quote, it's the "fascist dilemma". It's so famous that even my grandmother knew it.

Here's an article about it in Spanish, from ESIC University:

https://www.esic.edu/docs/editorial/articulos/170616_100602.pdf

El régimen fascista de Benito Mussolini distribuyó carteles con el mensaje «Burro o cannoni?» con el objetivo de explicar a los italianos por qué en tiempos de guerra escaseaba la mantequilla y de paso pedir comprensión y sacrificio para la mayor gloria de la patria. Por último, en 1976 Margaret Thatcher en un discurso dijo, «Los soviéticos antepusieron las armas por encima de la mantequilla, pero nosotros pusimos casi todo antes que las armas». — Sergio A. Berumen

Translation: "Benito Mussolini's fascist regime distributed posters with the message "Butter or cannoni?" with the aim of explaining to the Italians why butter was scarce in times of war and, in the process, asking for understanding and sacrifice for the greater glory of the country. Finally, in 1976 Margaret Thatcher in a speech said, "The Soviets put guns before butter, but we put almost everything before guns.""

(...) The expected answers were shouted back at him from well-disciplined ranks. "I know',” he shouted at Padua, "that each of you and all of you are ready for any eventuality." "Yes,” roared back the crowd "Butter or cannons—which have we chosen?” he asked at Belluno. “Cannons." came the response. The speech at Belluno, the second of the day. Was II Duce a sixth brief speech within a week in support of German minority claim in Czechoslovakia. He was expected to speak again tomorrow when he visits Vicenzia. (...) — The Sheridan Press (1938)

A quote of your grandmother quoting Mussolini does not suffice, no. — NOS4A2

Which is why I linked to an English newspaper from 1938 for that quote. That doesn't count either?

I don’t think that’s true. One can search the discussion and see that Mussolini’s name hardly appears, especially with quotes. — NOS4A2

The following doesn't count?

Her: "Mussolini asked a crowd of people: 'Pópolo, ¿Qué quiere? ¿Manteca, o Cañones?" (People, what do you want, butter or cannons?" — Arcane Sandwich

It's from a speech that Mussolini gave in Belluno. Here's a reference in English.

Right, by myself. — NOS4A2

And by others as well.

No one knows what fascism is. — NOS4A2

I think it's fair to say that Mussolini knew what fascism is.

No one has read nor quoted any fascist writings to discuss. — NOS4A2

Mussolini has been quoted several times in this thread.

I've got an idea for a short article. I'll probably participate.

Have you heard this one?



Napalm Death is fucking awesome BTW.

Sure. All I'm saying is that if Lenin and Stalin can be called fascists, then, by parity of reasoning, Mussolini and Hitler can be called communists. It just doesn't make sense to me, on a conceptual level. It dilutes the meanings of the very terms "left" and "right". But if the argument is that all of them were dictatorial and oppressive, that's a different discussion.

Yet I suspect that Nastegallu's () argument isn't exactly that, it's something else. I could be wrong, though. That's one of the problems with saying (and reading) things between the lines.

No proof, so I dismiss it. — JuanZu

You don't seem to understand how the burden of proof works.

You barely mentioned it. I can't consider it as an argument. — JuanZu

I offered to quote it, but you showed no interest in it. So, I didn't quote it.

It is very simple, — JuanZu

If it's so simple, then why isn't there a consensus among philosophers of mathematics? Explain that.

Hey Nastegallu, here's something interesting to consider for the discussion about fascism:

The Norwegianization of the Sámi (Norwegian: fornorsking av samer) was an official policy carried out by the Norwegian government directed at the Sámi people and later the Kven people of northern Norway, in which the goal was to assimilate non-Norwegian-speaking native populations into an ethnically and culturally uniform Norwegian population.

The assimilation process began in the 1700s, and was at that point motivated by a clear religious agenda. Over the course of the 1800s it became increasingly influenced by Social Darwinism and nationalism, in which the Sámi people and their culture were regarded as primitive and uncivilised. As such, it was argued that they needed to succumb to the Norwegian nation state. — Wikipedia

You will have to prove to me that all philosophy is expressed through syllogisms, premises and conclusions. — JuanZu

It is. There is no exception to the contrary.

And I have refuted it. — JuanZu

I disagree, you didn't refute it.

You will have to give me other arguments about fictionalism. — JuanZu

I offered to do so, with the example of the iron sphere. You weren't interested.

But I sense that you don't want to give them. — JuanZu

I do want to give them, which is precisely why I mentioned the example of the iron sphere. Again, more ad hominem attacks from you. You're not doing yourself any favors here.

Again, the only argument you made is not yours and has been refuted. — JuanZu

Of course it's not mine, it's from a better philosopher than myself. Are you saying that one cannot agree with other people's arguments?

How? Showing that the Pythagorean theorem transcends human cognitive processes. How do I show that it transcends them? By showing that such a theorem has universal properties and is not an individual cognitive processes, taking the example of the multitude of minds that understand the meaning of the theorem. — JuanZu

But you didn't show that. You merely asserted it. Basically, your "argument" is "I read Frege and Husserl's critique of psychologism. They convinced me. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. Why? Because I said so."

Oh no! On the contrary. Read some Lenin and you can see the populist elements in bolshevism and in Marxism-Leninism. Imperial Russia wasn't obviously a democracy, but right from the start democracy wasn't something that the leftist revolutionaries had in mind. After all, the dictatorship of the Proletariat isn't in any way "democratic" with it's class enemies and violent revolution against the capitalists. — ssu

So Lenin is a fascist now? Is that it?

Best example of left-wing populism is Venezuela. Would that be a fascist state? — ssu

Why would it be a fascist state and not a socialist one? Unless, of course, you're saying that socialism is the same thing as fascism. Is it?

But hey! Maduro is happily taking back Venezuelan illegals from the US and Venezuelan oil isn't under the Trump tariffs (yet). — ssu

Are you expecting me to defend Maduro? I'm not quite getting what it is that you expect from me. It seems like you're just blurting out nonsense. If that's the case, then I'll just blurt out some nonsense of my own: given that I saw Stolen on Netflix the other day, I have decided that from now on, I'm going to call you "Nastegallu". Suomi, Sámi, you're more or less related, aren't you? I mean, if I have anything to do with Maduro despite the fact that I'm from Argentina instead of Venezuela, surely I can call you a Sámi name instead of a Suomi one.

I would say that this is what an argument looks like in the philosophy you like. — JuanZu

And I would say that what you just said there is a fallacy.

But obviously philosophy has a very broad style of expression. — JuanZu

Which means what, exactly?

At least we can agree that you have to give arguments to prove a point which is what I have tried to do. — JuanZu

I already gave an argument. It's Bunge's argument for the fictionality of mathematical objects. I offered to expand on it with his example of the iron sphere, but you manifested no interest in such views, you simply decided that it falls within the province of psychologism. I suggested that you are wrong to equate fictionalism with psychologism, but again, you selectively ignored that point, as well as other some of the other points that I made. Once again, that's on you, not me.

I'm sorry but I can't take that as an argument. — JuanZu

You're confusing premises with arguments. In order to reject your argument, I don't need to formulate an argument of my own. All I have to do is to identify a false premise in your argument, which I have done. If you wish to defend that premise, you'll need a supporting argument. See the entry on The Argument From Vagueness Against Restricted Composition in the entry on Ordinary Objects that I provided for a working example.

Saying it's false and nothing else doesn't make you right, — JuanZu

Saying that it's true doesn't make you right.

nor does it mean I'm wrong. — JuanZu

If it's false, then you're wrong. I say that it's false. Therefore, you're wrong. And what I just said there, is a modus ponens. That, is how one argues in philosophy, in a less "formal" and more "expressive" way, to use your own words.

I invite you to give arguments against what I have said and argued. — JuanZu

I have already done so. See the passage from Bunge that I quoted on the Pythagorean theorem.

And here's why populism leads to fascism: by emphasizing the divide between the rulers and the "ordinary people" and stating that key societal problems are because of the rulers, populism can easily descend into fascism as populism embraces strong leaders, wants to take the power away form the real or many times imagined "elite" and replace it with the movements followers, who will follow their leader. — ssu

So there's no such thing as left-wing populism, in your view? It's always right-wing populism? Or are you saying that both left-wing and right-wing populisms lead to fascism?

Above all, fascism opposes democracy and democratic system where decisions have to be negotiated with other political factions. It sees democracy as the reason for corruption. Also this leads to a command economy, because the leader has to be in charge of everything. — ssu

Yes, we know what fascism is, we're on page 10 of this discussion. It's not like we're trying to define the concept. We're a bit past that point by now.

I have already done so. — JuanZu

No, you haven't. This is what arguments look like in philosophy. You haven't done that.

I think you're reading it wrong — JuanZu

I disagree, I think I'm reading it right.

I hope it's not on purpose. — JuanZu

And I hope that you understand that using ad hominem attacks (i.e., "you're not reading it right", "I hope it's not on purpose", etc.) is a fallacious way of arguing.

I said that such a premise is proven by the fact that several people know and understand the meaning of the Pythagorean theorem. — JuanZu

False. That does not prove it. You are merely stating a conditional premise, of the form "if p, then q". I'm saying that the antecedent is true while the consequent is false, which makes your conditional statement itself false. Merely repeating a statement doesn't make it true.

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that Mario Bunge's position fits into the psychologism that both Frege and Husserl criticized (and I would say refuted). — JuanZu

It does not. Psychologism is not the same as fictionalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics. Neither is formalism a la David Hilbert, for example.

I'm sorry but what you have said is formal juggling. — JuanZu

I disagree. What I said is a defense of mathematical fictionalism as developed by Mario Bunge, specifically.

And in no way have you validly refuted or counterargued. — JuanZu

You're confusing two different notions: validity and refutation. If an argument is valid, that means that if it has true premises, then the conclusion must also be true. Refutation, on the other hand, is identifying a false premise. To refute an argument, it's not necessary to show that it's not valid, it suffices to show that it is unsound, which is precisely what I have done here: I have identified the false premise in your argument. I already provided the counter-argument, in the form of a quote from Bunge that I happen to agree with. It's not my problem if you don't want to acknowledge it. That's on you, not me.

The argument is very simple : — JuanZu

If it's so simple, then why can't you state it clearly, as a list of premises entailing a conclusion?

The Pythagorean theorem does not exist individually, it exists in a way that transcends the individuality of individuals (proven by multiple people understanding the Pythagorean theorem at once). — JuanZu

False. Provide a supporting argument for that premise, or I'll simply deny it. The refutation of your argument is quite simple.

Do you know the critique of psychologism made by Frege and Husserl? — JuanZu

Yes, I do. And I have written a paper comparing their critiques of psychologism, using Kusch's work as secondary literature.

I would have appreciated a more formal presentation of your argument, i.e., a list of numbered premises that deductively entail a conclusion. I'll just assume that the following is one of your premises:

Not only that of the inventor but of many others. Which means that its existence as truth cannot be reduced to the cognitive processes of individuales — JuanZu

This is a conditional statement. As such, in order to be false, the conclusion must be T, while the conclusion must be F. And that is exactly what I claim. The antecedent of your conditional is true while the consequent is false. That being the case, the conditional statement itself is false. And since that is also the case, it means that your argument is unsound. Therefore, I can safely reject it. Bunge's position regarding the fictionality of mathematical objects still stands.

The text you quote from Mario Bunge seems to ignore what I said in the last part of my comment. — JuanZu

It's disagreement on Bunge's part, not ignorance.

That is, that the Pythagorean theorem remains true even if humanity disappears. It is a truth existing in an autonomous sense, which does not depend on the cognitive capacity of the human being. — JuanZu

False, unless you can provide an argument that supports that statement as the conclusion of said argument.

Think of a triangle formed in nature, or a triangular shaped object, it is a right triangle (you can find them by Google) . Is not the Pythagorean theorem realized in nature and in this natural triangle? — JuanZu

Nope, at least not for a mathematical fictionalist like Bunge, since he claims that material objects have no shapes. His example of the iron sphere is illustrative in that sense, and I would quote it here, but you seem to be averse to the idea that mathematical fictionalism is a respectable position in the Philosophy of Mathematics, so it might be a waste of my time to share that quote with you.

the Pythagorean theorem exists in the sense that it belongs in Euclidean geometry. Surely it did not come into existence before someone in the Pythagorean school invented it. But it has been in conceptual existence, i.e. in geometry, ever since. Not that geometry has an autonomous existence, i.e. that it subsists independently of being thought about. It is just that we make the indispensable pretence that constructs exist provided they belong in some body of ideas—which is a roundabout fashion of saying that constructs exist as long as there are rational beings capable of thinking them up. Surely this mode of existence is neither ideal existence (or existence in the Realm of Ideas) nor real or physical existence. To invert Plato’s cave metaphor we may say that ideas are but the shadows of things—and shadows, as is well known, have no autonomous existence. — Mario Bunge

Could be.