↪dimosthenis9 I feel your pain. The university system to me seems to be instilling a sense of class separation and control through just the same phenomena; the proposed oligarchy of the intelligentsia. As if we haven't seen that mentality utterly fail over and over again throughout history. — kudos

Actually we did not. what we saw was populism reposnible for countless atrocities. Perhaps the Pinochet regime in Chile is a counter example, but nowhere have academics put their ideas in practice. Their ideas might have inforrmed policy, but the decisions have been taken elsewhere. Take the great dictators in history. They were not academics, again with some exceptions, Mugabe in Zimbabwe for instance, but he hardly ranks as the worst of the bunch. .

I would agree about the enriching, and this I think is my (known) assumption: That knowledge does 'enrich' us with a certain authority; a certain power. And the more of this power one gets it seems reasonable to think that it would become more difficult to use it effectively. Not that the intention to do good weren't there, but that the more your actions affect a greater number, the more the possibility comes that this could manifest in unpredictability and do damage to some. Especially because a great deal of this knowledge concerns the validity of the very apparatus of judgement itself. — kudos

Here you make the same mistake. The enrichment I speak of is not power or authority, but it is the repertoire of arguments, the depth of knowledge and the acumen in applying tried and tested methodology that enriches. Because they know certain things and can use certain methodologies they wield power and authority. You think it is just blind coincidence they get these desirable goods, but that is not the case.

To cite one controversial example of how knowledge itself is not always the path toward good, take the Communist Manifesto. Marx and Engels had the intention of spreading what they knew about economics, social science, and political science. These days there aren't many who don't point the finger of blame towards that action for the cruelty carried out in its name, though in my view their work rests on perfectly sound knowledge of the world. What they saw, as far as I'm concerned was the truth, but when they attempted to particularize and individualize it those universals collapsed, free will clashed with the ideal axioms of the academic world and all sorts of unpredictability resulted. — kudos

Well there can be many things wrong with Marxist economics... or with dialectical materialism. However what regimes do with knowledge is something else than what academics discover. Following your line of thought we might blame physicists for the existence of the atom bomb, hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This isn't intended to be some sort of allegory of why we should never use the knowledge taught in universities and colleges, but it does go to show one example where the good it can do can easily turn foul. And this can be worse in some cases because it associates the interest within the particularities as if it were part of the universal, allowing the worst types of violence and harm done in the name of progress. — kudos

What is the alternative? No knowledge. The human life span on average was 30 years old in those days. You had no idea if you survived another winter due to poor harvest and things like romantic love, freedom, reading and writing were anathema and perhaps only available for the upper class. Sure knowledge might have adverse consequences, so has all human endeavour. Your view is in last instance romantic. It comes down to ignorance is bliss. I dout that very much when we ook at history.

Wow, then you're the perfect person to ask this question. Thanks for replying. I seem to have rubbed you the wrong way but that wasn't my intention. I suppose the first question I would ask you is to what extent does your academic involvement — and I'm regretting using the word 'academic' already — mix with your work in law. Imagine, that you were a judge instead of a lawyer, do you think that your exposure to certain ideas about social relationships as a scientist would affect your work to any extent? The judge being an impartial third party, do you see any conflict of interest? What if instead this person had some money invested in an non-profit, would it then become a conflict? Surely the judge who knows must self-regulate their actions in accordance with the knowledge of their own limitations, but this is exactly what I mean: then according to you they are more inclined to restraint than someone who has one-dimensional ideas that draw them to immediate action. — kudos

Those are good questions. Well, my work in practice is informed by my work in theory, but not determined by it. To some extent they are different ball games. My research into legal mobilization for instance has no bearing on the way that a legal case is solved in practice, Practice and theory sometimes pose different questions. However, I do bring what I know of theory to bare on a case in practice. I think my knowledge of criminology and philosophy of law informs my judgment and makes it more kaleidoscopic. I however do not see a conflict of interest, the two are not opposed, but related. Law is a profession and the law has to be applied to a case according to some sort of procedure, that is what a lawyer or judge does. However when doing so, I think your judgment is enriched by more knowledge of theory of law. Maybe that is the assumption you have, that somehow there is a struggle between the two, but I fail to see why that should be so. In fact if that was the case it would be very alarming, it would mean our theories of the world are wholly unrelated to the world itself.

The question of having some money invested in a non profit I do not really understand. Why would that influence the merits of a case either from a scientific or legal point of view? It might in some circumstances weigh in on judgment, the character of a defendent is not unimportant, but what it exactly does, depends on the facts at hand. What it actually means is dictated by the laws of the practice. I do not know whether a man of theory or practice is more easily swayed by this knowledge. A lot depends on the 'rules' of the practice and what a judge is 'supposed' to do with such knowledge.

the scientist might have more restraint, but law in practice is about jugdment, so you cannot show restraint... You know that when you get into legal practice. It has to do also with the role one plays. I think I can separate these roles, also because I know soething about the legal profession and legal ethics. I do not think I would judge slower, but I hope sharper because of my training in the asking of questions. However I find that my colleagues are generally sharper than I am, because of their training in practice maybe. However I know I am good at legal argumentaton and knowlegdable in the principles begind certain rules. therefore I bring other skills that the table that I feel increase fair and even handed judgment, at least I hope they do.

I'm so glad you said this, because now we are getting into the real content of the question. So what is this process of knowing ones self and their limitation? Where is the limitation? Is it common sense, is it negation of the knowledge (or 'denial'), is it drawing the line in a strict manner according to some unwritten rule? — kudos

Well, it is more akin to a 'discipline' which one has to learn. As a student you are very mmuch inclined to ask all kinds of questions and try to solve each and everyone. Than a prof comes along and shows you that you basically do not have the knowledge to answer this question. Many law students for instance like asking the question whether this or that law is 'effective'. However, effective in what sense and from what perspective? Can they perform for instance an economic analysis of a certain law to see whether it increases wellfare? They can not. They do not realise that as yet, but they learn it when it is pointed out to them. In the process of writing my PhD I have time and again be told to limit my question and not forray into areas I lack knowledge of. At some point you get a feel for it and the more you work 'acadmemically', the more you train and discipline yourself to realise these limitations of your field.

This is not an attack on you personally, please try to see it otherwise. If my ignorance is offending you, please feel free to correct me because I certainly don't consider myself an expert on social science or the law. But we I hope you understand that we can't only ask questions here that pertain to only one field of study completely. — kudos

I do not take this as such, not in the least. There was nothing in your post here I thought of as offensive or jumping to unwarranted conclusions and so neither is this response meant to include any barbs. It is means as just an exchange of ideas and an explanation of where I come from.

You're not entertained? Occupied at least? Doesn't entertainment bring happiness or at least contentment? Doesn't this advance (or at least as you say bear fruit of evidence of the advancement of) the human condition and well being? Is this not the point of science? — Outlander

Ohhh that is a misunderstanding, my apologies. I did not mean to imply all avenues of philosophical inquiry bear no fruit, just that some do not, just like in science. In fact, i think philosophy is critically important for our world view. I think there is a straight line to be rawn from Nietzsche through Michel Foucault, the feminist an equal rights movement, right to the new Bond movie. Our philosophical commitments, however implicit they are held, will determine the 'decay' of science. Behind all physcis lies metaphysics.

-We don't find such types of publication in science...so its the fault of Academia for allowing "free inquiry" and unmonitored publications under its name.
We are talking about the publication of theoretical model based on epistemically failed principles like supernaturalism, theism or idealism — Nickolasgaspar

Philosophy and science aren't competitors. In philosophy we find avenues which in the end bear no fruit, but in science we do as well. We find articles about subjects that were once hotly debated and have been forgotten nowadays, such as the substance 'Flogiston'. Maybe the same will happen to substances like 'dark matter'. The philosophical gaze is different from the scientific one. Philosopy traces concepts taken for granted in science, such as objectivity. See the work of Lorraine Daston and Peter Gallison for an illuminating trip through the history of science and the concept of objectivity. A philosopher such a Latour also points out how science becomes possible due to the specific constellation of people and things.

To get a grip on the question whether science is in decay we need a firm definition of what science is. Are we speaking about a practice, a method, an institution, or a certain kind of authority?

No offense, but being a lawyer is not exactly what I meant by ‘academic.’ — kudos

No offense, but I am a sociel scientist as well as a lawyer and I publsh on a regular basis in academic journals (although less than I wish because of other pressing academic duties such as teaching classes). Law can also be performed in academia next to practice. No offense, but I am beginning to feel more and more you have no idea what you are talking about and that you jump to conclusions too easily.

But when you are being sexually harassed do you go to a women’s studies professor? — kudos

No, but when you want to know something about the cultural origins of sexual harassment you do.

The academic in my experience usually deals primarily in the universality of the subject, where the specialist in the particulars. We are talking about a similar difference between the mathematician and the physicist. Physics being concerned more with the particulars of the real world at hand, where events aren’t as much idealized in the way they are in the universal form of mathematics. — kudos

Sure, but what is the point? When you want to know someting about a practical legal case you go to a lawyer. When you want to know something about the legal culture of a country you consult a sociologist of law and when you want to know someting about the pivotal nature of the right to property in today's legal systems you go to a scholar of jurisprudence. Sometimes you want to know something particular sometimes something universal.

If you attempted to apply the idealized structure of mathematics to physics problems you’d encounter unexpected results because the real world doesn’t always deal in easily determined discrete quantities. Similarly, those who deal in the analysis of universal categories of law might still fail in persuading a jury of an argument because that is so heavily influenced by particulars. — kudos

Of course. The only problem is that hidden in your argument is the assumption that academics are such silly people who do not know this. However they do. Ask me a practical question on taxes or traffic law and I have no clue. However I know I have no clue. that is the difference between someone academicaaly trained and someone who is not. Actually the exact oposit of your point is true. Academics know the limits to their competence because they know how to delineate their field. The non-academic makes all kinds of assumptions wandering into a field of knowledge blissfully unaware of his or her limitations.

But what I’m getting at is that if you really well understood those idealities, and attempted to work in them as they were in practical terms, then wouldn’t you to a certain extent be applying a force to those events themselves to be more like your idealizations? That is particularizing the universal and ultimately vise versa: you may run the risk of those particular actions coming to represent universal concepts, and individualizing them to suit whatever aims happen to be popular that day. — kudos

If you are unaware of the limitiations to your field of study then that problem might arise. However as I have explaine above, the whole point of academic studies is to get a grip on your field of knowledge and also what its imitations are. Therefore I think an academic is more trained to spot this problem than the non-academic. Moreover, there are of course relationships between the universal and the particular and one of the tasks of the academic is to study their interrelationships. A sociologist of law for instance studies how universal categories of law influence the behaviour of certain people in certain ways in practice.

Thanks! :) @jgill

The academic may know a lot, but they don't know how to truly behave like a layman. — kudos

Before I became a lawyer I was a layman at law. An interested person. So, have I forgotten the questions that intereste me then, but which I could not solve? No why would that be?

They can never know how to not know what they know, and that is a weakness. — kudos

I teach and so I see all kinds of people who do not know what I know, but who will know in the future. Why do you think I have mysteriously forgotten how it is to be a student?

The academic is likely to encounter the traditional way of life with a critical eye perhaps because of what they believe they know; sure they know things, but do they know better so as to decide for someone else? — kudos

Yes of course they do. Say you have a broken car. Then you take it to the mechanic. If you have a problem with your skin, you go to a dermatologist and when you have a legal question you go to a lawyer. Try taing your skin problem to the garage and your car to a lawyer and see whether your problems are solved or not. Academics are just specialised in some field or other and therefore they know more about that subject.

And well, acadmeics do not decide for you. Policy makers do. They decide what behaviour you may perform and what not. they could also use conviction or nudging. But all of that is perfectly straight forward no? I do think you agree that society needs laws and policy.

What gives them that right over others when the basis of their study precedes them just as much as their subject? — kudos

What gives them (or anyone for that matter) rights is a legal question. Mostly they do not have more rights than anyone else. I have the right to judge my students' exams because the university thinks I can do it well. I have the right to write Ph.D. after my name if I so want. Those are some rights I have. Sometimes academics inflruence policy making, such as in the case of the pandemic. However, I did not know academics had more rights than other people. They are more well respected socially maybe. That is logical. They know more about the subject at hand. It is that simple.

On a less ascerbic note, I gebuinely wonder what you mean to illustrate with showing Gershowitz first one and a half minutes. I thought he was clear as day for everyone. There is not a word of legalese in there... He does not say anything 'academic', he speaks as a lawyer. A lawyer knows the law just like an architect knows architecture. so why would this be a desastrous meeting? When you need an expert you call one. They needed an expert on constitutional law so they called him..

I'd definitely say yes to this question. Being paid for philosophy means bought philosophy. — Heiko

And being paid to do painting means bought painting .... wut? No, you get paid for something because you have a certain skill or trait that people pay money for. People pay to hear an educated philosopher lecture because they think they learn more from him or her. And lo and behold, they are probably right, because the man or woman in question has been dedicating her or his time to the subject. That is what academic education provies you with: time, a structure in which you are educated and educators that have obtained distinctions making it creible to think they are fit for their jobs and know what they talk about.

I want to say that it reaches beyond the question of whether an uneducated audience would understand or agree, but if the academic has the right to impose their ideology onto the non-academic. It seems like this unquestionably happens in daily life, but I don't know of any analysis or compendium on the subject to determine if it is being correctly applied. But there do seem to be cases, take this example (only the first 1.5 minutes) from the recent US impeachment case. — kudos

There are many assumptions in your post that an academically trained philoopher or a self educated one skilled at the discipline spots. A. You assume there is some 'ideology' which apparrently the acaemically trained share. This is not true. B. you seem to think that everyting must be equally understandable for everyone. That unfortunately is not the case. If I am at a conference on cancer treatment I will not understand it because my knowledge of biology is insufficient. Now I am a lawyer and what Dershowitz says in the fiirst 1.5 minutes makes perfect sense to me. your posts further display an assumption C. and that is that somehow there are different truths which can be imposed by different people, but there is also one tuth to rule them all to which you sometimes allude. It is hard to make out because you are not clear on what you mean by truth, but you seem to assume somehow the academics have some sort of conpiracy among themsleves to corrupt hte untrained, but also uncorrupted soul of the non academic.

↪Bitter Crank Taking your English education as an example. You must run into writing that is full of defects all the time. But if it were common to step in and act, then you'd expect to see a sort of dogmatic strictness applied to ordinary language that would be very foreign to it. But if you didn't know the subject as well it would be more acceptable, because you would be closer to the same 'level.' So someone who knows less about the subject should have more ability to alter reality than someone who studied the content of their subject. — kudos

You also seem to unerestimate academics. Why would they just apply dogmatic strictness? you think that scholars of the field of linguistics are so dim that they do not understand language is a living instrument? Of course they do. Their vision is not somehow clouded by 'academic' reasoning and thinking as you seem to suggest, it is expanded by it. So they know everything the layman knows and more. Take the last sentence of the quote above: "So someone who knows less about the subject should have more ability to alter reality than someone who studied the content of their subject." What do you mean by ; 'alter reality'? Non-academics and academics alike have the same ability to 'alter reality'. Go and pour a cup of tea or crack open a beer, move your fingers over the keys of a keyboard and presto reality is altered. The argument is totally mudled by the sloppy use of terms and language. The difference between non-academic and academic writing and argumentation is that academic writing and argument has standards of rigour, rigour which the sentence quoted above and the argument at large in original post so sorely lacks.

When a guy tells a woman she's beautiful and she either says that she knows or gives an unmoved expression that indicates that the sentiment isn't worth much is this just straight up hubris? I understand beauty can be measured to some degree scientifically, but is there ever any purpose to being so confident in a quality that in and of itself probably has no substance? I find it annoying when women seem to think so highly of themselves when in truth they don't look that great in my opinion. I find overconfidence keeps people from communicating and really getting to know one another. Is there a purpose for thinking so positively and absolutely about ones appearance? — TiredThinker

A lot depends on how, where and when. When you are saying it to a loved one or to someone in an intimate moment, it different from when you say it to a woman you just talked to in a bar. When you say 'you are beautiful' you are entering some kind of game, like a dance with words. 'you are beautiful' means something else than a factual claim about someone facial or bodily features.

To give an example, I work with a lot of very bright women, though I hardly have the urge to come up to one and say "hey you are bright". When I do so it is only to a friend, or submissive in a sign of admiration. If it was not and I would just say it after a casual encounter it would be arrogant and presumptuous as if I am the judge of brightness. Would it be hubris if she rolled her eyes? I think not. So it is with "you are beautiful".

If I say it to some girl I meet, I actually say "hey, I see something in you, want to play along". My main move though is made on the playing field of physical attraction and perhaps she does not want to play along. Maybe she thinks I am not an aequate dance partner, by choosing that specific genre of dance. Or maybe she just isn't into me. Why would that be hubris? It has nothing to do with her feelings about herself, but with her feelings about the one saying it. If she reacts like that she rejects me, but she has that right no? There is nothing over confident in that no matter how rejected I might feel.

I love that, if you have not read what I am saying is so about democracy, it must not be so? Is there Christianity without charity? Well, there is not democracy without reasoning. — Athena

Que? I have read what you wrote. And I explained that what you wrote was a called a no true scotssman fallacy. And yes, there absolutely is Christianity without clarity. If there is something emphatically unclear it is religion, even by its own lights. The Islaamic theologican an philosopher Al Ghazali has written most interesting things about fate despite rational unclarity.

And then, the analogy is shoddy as well. Why would clairty and religion have anything to do with democracy and reason? You just rpoclaim something but do not argue your point.

The problem is democracy does not have one book that is the authority on what democracy is. However, we have the gods who argued until they had a consensus on the best reason and democracy is an imitation of the gods. — Athena

Wut? And they forgot to call me when the gods started to discuss under the veil of ignorance?

In his explanation of the Republic, it would-be philosophers who rule. In the past, the US attempted to prepare everyone for democracy, so we have a republic that through education had a culture for democracy. — Athena

The US id not prepare everyone for democracy. In fact the US supported ruthless dictatorships in South America.

In old test books, democracy is defined like this "Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." — Athena

Yes and not with 'rule by reason'.

From the Democracy Series and among the characteristics of democracy is "the search for truth" — Athena

Great, by what political philosopher have those been composed? The search for truth also takes place in non democratic countries. In face the scientific revolution preceded democracy.

Then we have Cicero “God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice.” Before education for technology, we were educated for liberty and justice and a democratic way of life. — Athena

By whom? By the Romans? They ended up revering an emperor as God. You might be right there is all things wrong with current education, but your reasoning is incomprehensible. Perhaps caused by this shoddy education system I am thinking. You link epochs and ideas to each other without any rhyme or reason.

When the Prussians took control of Germany, they centralized education and focused it on technology for military and industrial purpose. They had a Christian Republic but it was authoritarian, and that is what the US has become. That is not what we defended in two world wars. — Athena

Yes, all the more proof that Christianity is not related to democracy. The Prussian state was a militaristic 'obrigkeitsstaat', an perhaps the US has become more militaristic. I do not really know though.

The trinity of the American republic's government is as important as the trinity of God and this is devoid of superstitious notions. It is understanding the power of the trinity is like the reason a stool has 3 legs. A stool with only two legs would never work. Three, the trinity is very important. I don't think we want Trump on a unicycle no matter how entertaining he is — Athena

Your argument seems to run like this: triangles are important in philosophy. triangles are important in christianity, therefore Christianity is based on philosophy, but that is simply an invalid argument.

Most stools have four legs. I also like the number three and indeed in Islam the trinity is not accepted, but whether it is more or less reasonable to do so is up for grabs. The thread of argument that seems interesting in your ramblings is the following: The Christian metaphor of the trinity is a worthwhile heuristic device because it allows us to conceive of power as an interplay of forces without having to conceive of some centroifugal point. The number three holds value in argumentation because of how our minds work. That is all well and good. It is interesting and should be further worked out, but get rid of all the other bollocks, such as politics, democracy, justice and the military industrial complex.

What I said is the US demobilized after wars, until Eisenhower and the Korean war. That is not a false statement. — Athena

That might be true or not but that was not a statement, but an argument in support of your statement that US democracy could not go to war. That statement is false.

Do you know what the Masons are? Do you know several of the US founding fathers were Masons? If you do, you should know they designed Washington D.C. and the US government with an understanding of the power of math and form. — Athena

Sure I know and sure I know they like triangles, but that notion was known in political philosophy before the US founding fathers. It always baffles me how much US citizens revere a club of land owners who had to bash out a constitution. They did a fine job but were by no means demi-gos, just people. People are inspired by ideas current at the time. The notions llike limited government and division of the political in three branches have been around since John Locke. Add tot hat that US democracy is a flawed form of democracy. The reason for that has nothing to do with triangles or reason. but with power politics between the populous states focused on trade and the less populous ones focusing on agriculture.

Also since the beginning of civilizations religion has given governments legitimacy. And in a slightly different take on the importance of the gods, the Capitol Building in D.C. has a mural of the gods that make a republic strong. This link will explain what the gods have to do with the democracy of the US. https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/capitol-story/apotheosis-washington They go with being a Mason and the founding fathers' thrill of making history as we move closer to a new age. If you understand these gods, you know what math and science have to do with our democracy. — Athena

Seems to me an early commercial for George Washington's rule.... The fact that images of God or Gods are used says nothing. about the republic being founded on reason. Founded on mysticism is more like it.

edit: there is another interesting line you could take and that is the necessity of truth or better consensus on facts for democracy. What I do concede is that democracy cannot survive when it is internally so divided that there is not only no consensus on politics based on facts but on the facts themselves. That is an interesting line, but then drop all the links with Chrristianity.

When a democracy is no longer rule by reason, it is no longer a legitimate democracy. Education is essential to democracy and that is not education for technology! Because the US replaced liberal education with the German model of education for technology, it is now what it defended its democracy against. A police state serving military might, and self-destructing because of reactionary politics. Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended, — Athena

What you perform here is a 'no true scotsman' falacy. You state that a democracy is defined as rule by reason and when I object you tell me it is no longer a democracy if it is not. That way you simply define democracy to suit your own terms. However, in no literature have I ever come across such a definition. The rule of law maybe, but the rule by reason? It is also very unclear what that is supposed to mean.
I am also interested what you consider to be the 'German model'. Last time I checked German education was quite good environmentally friendly and very pro democracy.

A saw is not a more reasonable tool than a hammer your logic seems wrong to me. I think in general Americans need a better understanding of their mathematical heritage. Many of the founding fathers were Masons and the trinity is three forces keeping each other in check and balance. If anyone becomes weak, the triangle breaks and the democracy ends. — Athena

I would recommend more political education if that is your point, not more mathematics. The trinity seems an odd way to go when what you are after is called the trias politica written down by Montesquieu, the metaphor of a triangle and all. By all means teach it, but why mathematics?

Let me clarify, absolutely, the trinity is three aspects or three forces, and this knowledge is based on math and therefore is good reasoning. That knowledge is essential to a population that wants democracy. — Athena

Of course it is not mathematics. Mathematics deals with purely formal quantities. You define forces that keep each other in check. There is nothing mathematical about that. A triangle is a mathematical figure, no more no less. The content you give it stems from theology. that is all fine, but it is not math.

That knowledge is essential to a population that wants democracy. — Athena

Why would knowledge of a trinity be necessary for democracy?

My reasoning is not false but the people in the US are ignorant of math, logos, and cause and effect. They are not only ignorant but their thinking is way too short-term and narrow! The US entering the mid-east to control oil and establish strategic power there, was sure to be expressive and have unpleasant ramifications. Doing so has seriously weakened the US, or at least Biden's hold on power, as the mistakes of the past are now in his lap. I hate to think of what will happen if this results in Trump's return to power because Trump is destructive to our relationship with our allies when these relationships are more important than ever before. My point is bad reasoning gets bad results, and good reasoning gets good results and democracy is about understanding that. — Athena

That might all be true, but I have no idea what knowledge of angles, goniometrics or triangles have to do with it.

Our democracy in the US, was not only less prone to war, but intentionally unable to engage in war because we demobilized our military force at the end of wars, until Eisenhower and the Korean war. That is the point in time when we because the Military-Industrial Complex we defended our democracy against in two world wars. During the first world war, we were best known for our missionaries and charity and it took us a year to mobilize for war. Around the world, we were known for being anti-war and working for peace. One step to world peace was President Kennedy's Peace Core, which is sent around the world to help people resolve serious problems and have better lives, without military force. — Athena

I am all in favour of peace, but the US not engaging in war before Korea is false, it entered the first and second world war on the side of the allies, it fought wars against Mexico and Spain to name but a few and during and before those, it managed to slaughter the native American population and massacre each other from 1861 to 1864. The US has a nice track record when it comes to going to war. I am not bashing the US here by the way, it is not judgment, just fact.

You seem to curiously relate politics to theology to mathematics... why though is beyond me, creating some odd mathematical mysticism that you seem to want our kids to learn. If you want to make a point about the usefulness of the triangle as a metaphor and its perennial use in theology, politics and philosophy, than you have an interesting point. However, you hang way too much on it and it breaks the whole wall apart you have been masoning here.

Looks like a damn fool reason for people killing each other doesn't it. People who value philosophy need to raise our cultural value of it and the notion that democracy is rule by reason. For world peace, and to actualize our human potential that needs to replace religion. — Athena

The problem is that democracy is not necessarily rule by reason. Democracy is rule by popular will but this will might not be reasonable. You also seem to suggest that the concept of the trinity as three aspects is somehow based in math and therefore more reasonable. Moreover that therefore people holding that view are less prone to killing. That all is false. the ISlamic god is just as mathematically reasonable because rooted in the number one. Also Christians that did all recognise the trinity killed each other mercilessly see the 30 years war in Europe.

which I've always interpreted as 'while truth concealed by dissembling feminine-like appearances' ..., 'truth is a dominatrix' to which every 'truth-seeker' must submit – never possessing or ever controlling her. For Freddy, 'the will to truth' is more often than not emasculating, or de-naturalizing (re: technoscience "disenchants" instead of cultivates human nature (i.e. higher animality)), a life-negating (weakening, even sickening – "slavish") expression of the will to power. Loving this 'goddess Truth', at best Freddy suggests, is never fully reciprocated and exacts a profound psychological, or spiritual, price which her suitors must deny to themselves, or sublimate somehow, in order to live with her faithfully on their knees. Freddy, IMO, seems to be saying to Enlightenment, science-envying, modern philosophers et al: amor fati, bitches. :smirk: — 180 Proof

I agree, but I read Nietzsche also as calling forth an active spirit. We need to submit, but also to command in the sense of setting values, proclaiming truth, governing as well as being governed, in a state of tension, For me it is closely related to the master slave dialectic and Foucault's concept of power as both enabling and dominating, a dance in which at some point the ,movements start to flow into each other and who leads and who follows becomes unclear. I think the relation between truth and power is one of Nietzsche's most profound and productive insights, but how he sees the relationship exactly is ambivalent.

But then, yesterday with a hidden reference to one of your self descriptions Proof, I called myself a truthtrickster in response to a plea to criminalize denying climate change on the basis of our obligation to tell the truth. Here I saw truth and power to coincide withouth the speaker knowing it. So I am sceptical of seeking the truth, the relationship is more important. That is why for me philosophy is about seduction, a game in which, when done correctly, the participants share mutual love. When played with truth: your love for truth deepens and so does her love for you, that is, she makes life easier. Possession though, or utter submission ends the game and makes one a dogmatic, dry and Nordic.

Sounds like you've had a bad experience. Not sure I have ever met an analytic philosopher. — Tom Storm

No not really, most analytic philosophers I met were perfectly nice people. I just find the question "what does it even mean" a bit chidish, probably because they use it a lot, so in that sense you might be right. Also you asking me to explain Nietzsche I find a bit odd,"hey tell me what it means!" While I would say either know it, or look it up.

But anyway, I do not mind explaining and talking about it a bit. Well, I liked the reference because Nietzsche had a nice chapter about how philosophers approach truth, in a crude way as if truth will immediately answer every question posed to it. So he compared truth to a woman, You do not approach a woman like that immediately demanding looking up her skirt. I liked the quote saying I am not looking for truth or other high minded persuits, but I like to approach women by doing philosophy. So it was a bit playful. It is not untrue though, I think philosophy is actually profoundly sexual and that its imagery and lines of argument are sexual metaphors.

"The daring (not to say scandalous) character of Bohr's quantum postulate cannot be stressed too strongly: that the frequency of a radiation emitted or absorbed by an atom did not coincide with any frequency of its internal motion must have appeared to most contemporary physicists well-nigh unthinkable. Bohr was fully conscious of this most heretical feature of his considerations: he mentions it with due emphasis in his paper.....[Bohr's remark]"In the necessity of the new assumptions I think that we agree; but do you think such horrid assumptions, as I have used necessary? For the moment I am inclined to most radical ideas and do consider the application of the mechanics as of only formal validity."" — Caldwell

I don't think it is a scathing remark against Bohr actually. He rather applauds Bohr for being daring, scandalous and ... revolutionary. What he seems to be hinting at is the existence of a scientific orthodoxy, not unike Kuhn described. As such the scientists and the Ulema have things in common, both form epistemic communities. That is well accepted in the philosophy of science now. That would make the death of science the death of sceintific orthodoxy. That happens frequentily in science itself though with 'science' actually dying.

Hmmm - what does that even mean? Aphorisms are amusing but are they anything more than glib provocations? — Tom Storm

"What does that even mean?" whenever I read this line I imagine a baby analytic philosopher hitting his little fist against his chair demanding meaning! meaning! but that aside. It is a metaphor and Nietzsche wrote a couple of pages explaining it rather clearly, especially considering how he usually writes. Anyway both appear in a certain way and both demand a certain approach.

Are you chasing after Truth? After a more complete understanding of Reality? After happiness? — leo

Girls. I am the first to admit it is a bit of a roundabout way to chase. But Nietzsche was on point: "what if truth was a woman".

Apparently they do. — Caldwell

Ok but it is totally unclear how or why. I have no idea why complimentarity says something about the death of science. I can conjecture a Marxist 'death of science scenario', or an ecological one, but that does not seem to be your point. So right now I am at a loss :)

I will also check that. Leon Rosenfeld was a Marxist... which leas me to believe economy would not be that far away ;) But I will read what I can find on him. Thanks Caldwell.

Hi Tobi,

You can critique science on political and economic grounds. But that would be different from the arguments of cycle framework. — Caldwell

No, it's metaphysical. — Caldwell

Yes but I am unsure what theiir metaphysical argument might be. If one points to the essence of a certain something, here science, but conveniently disentangle it from its relations. can the metaphysical argument still be sound, or are they attacking a beast of their own making? My argument here is also one of metaphysics, not economics.

The environmental perspective I would consider a metaphysical perspective, because it presupposes a certain structure of the world and tends to accept certain commitments, holism for instance and often the idea that these myriad of connections that form an ecosystem are intrinsically valuable. Basically what I and I think other posters as well is what there argument is exactly. If it is 'everything is cyclical and what begins has to have an end', than they are right but only in a trivial sense and we have no way of knowing whether we are in the dawn of science or its dusk. therefore there has to be more. So what would their argument be to say science is in decay on metaphysical grouns?

The critique against science, insofar as the decline theorists are concerned, has always been metaphysical. That is, they are arguing about the very essence of science. How else can something be destroyed, but through the demolition of its very essence. Science has qualities essential to it. — Caldwell

I wonder about that because I think it would be very hard to say what the essence of science is. There are also different styles of doing science, see for instance Chunglin Kwa, " styles of knowing" . I do not think people will stop wanting to know. What can ' decay' is faith in the current institutions of science and perhaps against a method we call scientific.

While influences outside it from different schools of thoughts or political thoughts, even economic, have been..well.. influential in shaping the scientific research and development, those are not the object of their criticisms. The scientific decline theorists are, after all, philosophers. And being philosophers, they try to maintain the proper parameter within which to attack science. — Caldwell

But if you artificially disentangle something from which is is embdedded and then attack it, aren't you attacking a straw man? An influential strand in the philosophy of science points out the political and economic nature of science. I think such a critique will hit science harder because it attacks the source of its legitimacy, its supposed purety and objectivity.

Another thing I want to stress is that these same theorists show a high degree of respect for disciplines such as the scientific psychology. They are pragmatists and empiricists. They recognize the delineation between the cultural, organic, and behavioral on the one hand, and the atomistic world on the other. And here we can understand why they reject the increasingly mechanistic view of reality. When everything and anything is reduced to bare bones formulations, with the occasional corollary here and there, one can start to wonder whether scientists and the natural world are now the casualty. — Caldwell

The way you desscribe it, to me it seems these criticisms come from an environmental perspective. However then it does not make sense to exclude the political.The 'atomistic world' has always been a mechanical world I think though and the formulations are just translations of its supposed mechanical processes. When we want to ' smell the earth' , more is needed, some form of normativity. So I do not understand their argument I guess. They want their cake and eat it too, somehow separating science from other human endeavours, but in the end ground it in some form of intrinsic value...

True. And let's be careful not to confuse precision or exactitude with mechanistic. — Caldwell

Yes very true.

Yes! We want to smell the earth not hide behind the theory of numbers and symbols. — Caldwell

Yes we do. We long for the earth and give rights to trees. And the symbols and number are countered by other symbols and numbers. Cost benefit analyses clash with impact assessments and we learn that the numbers we get are dependent on the numbers we feed and the answer becomes 42 like some sort of oracle proclaiming the wish of the Greek gods.

I hope to see a debate or discussion regarding the anti-scientific sentiments or movement towards the decay of science. So, I'll suggest some ideas that could help stir the subject into the darker reality than what we're used to. This is written in a rush, and there is certainly much room for improvement. — Caldwell

Maybe I can write a story, the first part of it adapted from Orhan Pamuk, a famous Turkish writter, but I do not remember which book. Anyway, in the old Ottoman Empire there was a scientific council, the Ulema. The Ulema advised the sultan on all questions scientific and theological, which, for the Ulema were one and the same. They applied Aristotelian philosophy, Islamic teaching and Sufi wisdom. The Ulema held a venerable position. The Ottoman Empire was at the height of its power. Its military might and its bureaucracy were unrivalled. Istanbul was a city of splendour.

A terrible plague struck the city though and the Sultan asked the Ulema for council. After a number of days of study they delivered their opinion. The plague was an evil greater than whatever pestilence had befallen the Sublime Porte. It must have been a true evil, an evil only brought about by satan himself. The question was how to get rid of the devil. The Ulema reasoned as follows: the devil tries to corrupt and therefore he will dwell in corrupt places, like brothels and coffee houses. They should be closed without hesitation. The devil dwells in places where money exchanges hands so all markets should be closed. The devil dwells in places where many people gather and where he can corrupt many faithful and so mosques and schools needed to be closed down as well. Where people are the devil is so people should be sequestered as much as possible until the devil leaves the city. And so it was done. The spreading of the plague subsided, and the Ulema was held in even higher regard, truely men of scientific and religious excellence, with a masterful insight in the workings of the world. They had saved the city relying on the greatest scientific principles, those of theoogy and aristotle and sound logic. It must truly be the greatest scientific body in the world.

But the Ulema declined. After many years this venerable institution became seen as obscurantist, backward. The Empire could not compete anymore with its rivals, France, Britain, and even Russia. They held on to the old ways while the Western powers embraced empiricism. The question though is why the Ulema feal, what made Western science so good? Is it the relentless criticism and continuous testing of its resultsm the spirit of critique? The Ulema were not used to critique, hierarchies were fixed, the great hocas became old... the west was new and up and coming and sicentists continuously test each other and battle for results. It led to the system we know now, with peer review, countless journals, publish or parish and a relentess rat race of all the little cogs in the scientific machine. And so science flourished and perhaps still does.

But... what does relentless critique do? At some point the critique turns against itself. The scientifi method, where only the data counts is a myth. Facts are fabricated says Bruno Latour, even the machines on which we type influence our results. Who you are impacts on what you write and no one is immune from his or her own identity say the postmodern researchers and the proponents of critical studies of various kinds. Science has become reflexive, self critical, aware of the risks it has helped produce. It became afraid it has become an accomplice to climate change and the atomic bomb. How does science decay, well by its own hand, by the very same thing that made it so strong, relentless critique. The conspiracy theorists, the Q's they are symptoms of a deeper, an maybe you say darker reality @caldwell Criticism has turned from a battle in which the best argument survived into a fearful dance of those aware of their limitations and where objectiveity has been dethroned, The shamans merely fill the gaps left behind. the violence is self inflicted and fed by a pesimistic and prudish age where moderation is key and. Gradually the teachings of the old Ulema start to hold sway again, because people are adrift and because science comes with so many disclaimers the people have started to fear that the medicine is worse than the cure. Because people started to long again for the unshakable truths of the Aristotelian order. Indeed pandemics are proper ground for scientific revolutions...

Suppose there was a hypothetical society that felt that adultery should be illegal but child porn should be legal. Why should I think that this society is inferior to our current society on the topic in question? My whole argument is that this hypothetical society has better attitudes on this issue than how our current society feels on these matters. — TheHedoMinimalist

Yes and your whole argument is misguided and I am trying to show you. It is inferior (all things being equal) because it allows police intervention on an important area in everybody's lives, namely their love live and it is inferior because it decrominalizes something much more worthy of police intervention namely the possessing of child pornography, tacitly condoning a practice we find much more crime worthy.

The possession of child porn is not violence though. It has an extremely indirect causal relationship to the actual sexual abuse of children in our own country. — TheHedoMinimalist

You just do not want to get it. It does not matter if the link is small collectively it increases demand and we think creating demand for an extremely abusive practice is wrong. Therefore we use criminal law intervention as a policy measure to kill demand. Something does not have to be vioent to be a crime but we do want to stop the violence inherent in the chain of child porn production. Now stop repeating yourself and accept what has been told to you countless times and to which you have no answer.

We also usually keep people’s Internet history and pornographic preferences personal and private as well. Why do you think that adultery is a violation of privacy but having the police take someone’s computer to check if they have child porn on it isn’t a violation of privacy? — TheHedoMinimalist

It is also a violation of privacy but some violations of privacy are to be tolerated in the interest of law enforcement. We find the bodily integrity of children important and that is why we have enacted laws against the abuse of children. Consuming child pornography is creating demand, which in turn pulls supply so we deem it worthy of prosecution as well. In order to prosecute effectively law enforcement needs some competencies such as invading privacy under circumstances. (a suspicion for instance). We simply do not find your personal injury and humiliation a big enough deal to warrant an inasion of privacy.

I think it’s worth pointing out that it seems that a single person that consumes child porn produces a very minuscule percentage of the cause of the child being abused. The producer and distributor of that content is the primary party responsible for the abuse and the audience of the porn only contributes in a minuscule way unless you add them all up as a collective. — TheHedoMinimalist

Indeed and to dissuade people from joining the collective we have made the distribution and possession of child pornography a criminal offense. I do not know what you do not get. You keep thinking that harm is the primary reason for criminal law to enter the fray, but it is not. It is only one of the considerations.

In contrast, the primary contributors to adultery are adulterers themselves. So, even if child porn produces more harm than adultery overall, I still think it’s reasonable to believe that the average adulterer causes more harm in our society than the average person that watches child porn. Thus, I think we should either make both activities legal or make both of them illegal. — TheHedoMinimalist

No it does not cause more harm 'to society' it causes harm to a person in society. Whereas the ciolation of a child shakes the trust of the child and his parents in society, because rape an sexual abuse are associated with violence, people look to the state to protect us from vioence and therefore the occurrence of such grave violence against a person is a shock to the legal order. We accept that love sometimes goes bad. We do not like adultery and disapprove of it, but we do not see it as severe enough to allow criminal investigations with the aforementioned violations of privacy. And again the level of harm is only one issue, the feelings of resentment against a state allowing violence against children is another. Consensual sex between a minor and an adult is criminal even if no harm is done and both live happily ever after.

Then why do you think that it has business preventing the sexual abuse of children? After all, isn’t a big reason for why sexual abuse is bad is because it violates a person’s dignity? There are other seemingly justified laws that we have to protect people’s dignity like the fact that spitting on someone’s face is illegal. Technically, a little of spit in your face could do you no physical or financial harm. But, it is disrespectful for someone to spit on you and this is why it’s illegal(and rightfully so it seems). — TheHedoMinimalist

Because we should protect the dignity of children who are powerless more than the dignity of an adult who has made a bad choice of partner. Moreover, sexual abuse concerns violence and force adultery does not. The state has the monopoly of violence so any violent crime is perscuted more heavily. I od not know if spitting on someone's face is illegal. But even if, then still there is the reason not to proescurte adultery and that is that we do not like the state snooping inside our bedrooms. The street is a public place in which the state has more jurisdiction.

I think it’s even more difficult to enforce laws against possession of child porn without locking up innocent people. — TheHedoMinimalist

Who says anything about locking up innocent people? But yes the laws against possession of child pornography are difficult to enforece. (less so are the laws against the distribution of it). But so? The law against intra marital rape is also very difficult to enforce. At the end of the day it comes down to what we want to protect and your feeling of rejection just does not cut the bar. The bads outweigh the goods. I for one do not want police scrutiny over my love life.

I heard stories of people getting hacked and having law enforcement think that they were visiting child porn sites. Also, it’s possible for your neighbor to steal your WiFi and use it for child porn and potentially get you in trouble. So, I would say that child porn laws have their own set of enforcement problems to deal with. — TheHedoMinimalist

Ohh that certainly is true. We might well have a debate on the level of intent one must have. That is a technical matter which I think exceeds the scope of this debate, because it does not touch on the criminality of child porn possession, but the level of proof required.

f we only make adultery illegal for those that signed a legal agreement that promises that they would stay faithful to their partner. We can then start encouraging people in monogamous relationships to sign such agreements and people willing to sign these agreements might be more desirable in the “monogamous relationship market”. And everyone who signs the agreement seems to be basically consenting to having this law imposed on them so I don’t think they can rightfully complain about the punishment. Also, the couple can agree on the punishment. For example, they can make it a civil case with a financial settlement instead of a criminal sentence if they want. You can’t really do that with child porn though and so that’s another important advantage for adultery laws over child porn laws in my opinion. — TheHedoMinimalist

Why would we want to formalize our love life like that an why would we go through all this trouble? We can also accept that love goes bad. We might actually in our current prudish society well go the way you suggest. I think it abhorrent having legal agreements ddetermining my way to live. Some countries actually do have adultery as a cause for divorce and it influences the height of alimony and some such, So that kind of legal systems exist. The contract against addultery in such a legal system is called marriage. That is far different than a prohibiton of adultery though. I think such anti adultery contracts might even exist, in prenuptual agreements for instance but I am not a civil law person. The fact that cannot do that with child pornography is an argument for use of criminal law, not against it.

I want to clarify that I was only talking about people that watch child porn in my OP rather than those that actually produce the content. It doesn’t seem to me that your point here applies to people that just watch the stuff and have it on their computer. — TheHedoMinimalist

It does, As 180 pointed out, consumers keep demand running for the production of it. Therefore, in order to decrease demand it is criminalized. You confuse questions of criminalization with questions of morality. By an large the same logic applies to money laundering. Crime also runs in chains.

I think adultery also destabilizes public order. I think the lack of legal persecution of people that cheat leads partners that have been cheated on to feel like they must seek justice for themselves and that results in them trying to take revenge against the person that cheated on them. This is often even celebrated by people who hear of such revenge tales and I think this sort of thing helps promote the narrative that vigilante justice is good and that you can’t rely on the law to stand up for your dignity. If we had laws against adultery, then I think we can help civilize the process of the victim of adultery getting the justice that they might indeed deserve to have. Though, I do think there are strong arguments against making adultery illegal too. I just think that there is a stronger case for making adultery illegal than there is for making drugs illegal.

Another potential way that adultery destabilizes our society is by the way it potentially helps destabilize our families and family structures. Adultery often leads to divorce and that tends to weaken family bonds. Family bonds are often understood as the staple of our overall social bonds. It’s not clear if we can have a functioning society with too many dysfunctional families. I think adultery helps create dysfunctional families. — TheHedoMinimalist

Point A. above should be supported by research. The law simply has no business protecting your dignity. When you engage in a personal relationship, like love is, we keep it personal. As far as I know the social structure, economy and trade are not undermined by the decriminalization of adultery. Add to that that it is very difficult to enforce. People have all sorts of relationships in this day and age. Mind you that a crime is a crime regardless of someone actually pressing charges, so all kinds of alternative lifestyles would be criminalized. Criminal law is a tool that exact vengenance, but not on a personal level, but on the level that a good worthy of protection by the state is at issue. A person feeling cheated simply does not make the cut.

That brings me to the second point, point B, the protection of the family structure. Well in some countries, for instance Turkey, that was used as a reason to raise the possibility to recriminalize adultery. Howwever, that kind of moralism is outdated. Moreover the cure is worse than the disease, your love life becomes an issue of intervention by the state. Many peope rightly so want the state out of their bedroom.

I wouldn’t consider selling euthanasia drugs to be violence though. According to the first online dictionary that I have consulted, violence is “behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury”. It appears to me that there is no physical force exerted by a euthanasia drug and thus it isn’t violence. I would say violence is more akin to hitting, cutting, or shooting projectiles at someone. It usually causes suffering and only sometimes death. Euthanasia typically causes death with no suffering. — TheHedoMinimalist

And as I tell my studenst, consulting a dictionary to solve legal questions is usually pretty pointless. On your definitions psychological violence is not violence, but legally it is. The monopoly of violence entails that killing or the methos of killing fall under state jurisdiction. The selling of suicide drugs is still something else than actively assisting suicide, but what you do providing the equipment to people to commit violence upon themselves. Arguable the state may regulate this kind of violence based on the need to protect vulnerable people. (When you buy a drug to kill yourself, you are by definition vulnerable). Here too it is chain responsibility, the further the act is away from killing the less criminal it will be, but whether it should be entirely legal is a question of legal policy.

I’m actually more sympathetic to just making all the stuff I mentioned legal rather than making adultery illegal. I’m quite sympathetic towards social libertarian causes. Though, I was merely trying to talk about the ways in which I think that our laws are inconsistent and based on vague principles. — TheHedoMinimalist

Yes and that is all fine. What I am trying to do is show why these laws are quite consistent and what the legal principles behind them are. They are, as far as I am concerned, more consistent then your proposals, so I am trying to explain why I hold them to be so.

The reason adultery is decriminlized has to do with the retreat of moralim as a basis for criminal sanctions and with the fact that adultery is a private wrong. The question should not be whether adultery is morally right or wrong and therefore warrants being criminalized, but whether legally it makes sense to combat this wrong through criminal law. Criminal law signals the intervention of the state, but why would the state intervene in a matter that is purely private? It simply does not have the dimension to become a state issue.

That is different from child pornography, because the state protects individuals who do not have the power to protect themselves. (That is why sexual abuse of a patient is a criminal matter for instance and sex with a minor is even if it is consensual). Drug adiction is a problem for the state because it destabilizes pubic order (at least that is the argument for drug related prosecution). Euthanasia is decriminlized uner certain condditions in the Netherlands, but the case may be made that it should be a matter of state interest because it has the monopoly of violence and euthanasia undermines that monopoly. Prohibiting suicide is I think pointless from a criminal law perspective.

Adultery simply does not carry that kindd of importance as a matter for the state to intervene in. State intervention is also an infringement of privacy, the private space becomes public so I think there are good legal grounds for restriction of state intervention in this domain. Adultery might be a civil wrong, because the cheated partner is damaged, but I do not see any role for criminal law.

The OP seems to consider that moral wrongs should be dealt with by criminal law, but that assumption is false.

Posted twice...

Yes, Caldwell, correct. It is Tobi :)

Non-existence can't exist
-so, there must be infinite existence in all directions for all time
-something which exists carries certain attributes: is affected by things, effects things, takes up space and encompasses time — Derrick Huesits

The argument is fallacious on similar grounds as the ontological argument for God is. In fact it is Parmenides all over again. You define something into existence, but it is simply our language that works this way and our language does not decide what exists actually and what does not. The ontological argument is more sophisticated though, because you need all kind of additional assumptions, namely that existing carries certain attributes and that it means to be affected by things etc. Why would that be? Some things are affected vy some things, for instance humans are affected by emotions, and other things are affected by other thing, rock for instance are not affected by emotion. Why cannot there be an entity that is not affecte by anything?

In fact it seems to me that according to your argument God cannot be affected by anything but itself. God is infinite existence. Ininity is all encompassing, ergo God exists as all, so everything that can affect God, is synonimous with God itself.

To me love is a metaphysical condition and as such real. The world is always an object of care for us. what I mean is that we are never unaffected by the world around us, but very intimately related to it, From the thoughts I am typing down, to the slightly sticky chair I am typing on to the feeling of the keys of my board giving way and the letters appearing. That is I think the condition of love, the feeling of experience of the world and care for that experience. It is a precondition of all our other experience and therefore my designation as 'metaphyscal'.

Love of a person means that the world has condensed into that one single point, which starts to dominate other concerns. It is the bundling of care for the world towards that other person in which we recognise our own position in the world. Love is like a mirror, it is as it were the world smiling back.

Well there is the right to bodily integrity. In principle you have a right to do as you please with your body and you certainly have a right to make other refrain from 'using' your body. So as such people who are against vaccination have a right not to be. However there can be pressing social needs to override this right. Just like sometimes you will have to comply with dna tests in a criminal investigation. These rights generally (at least in Europe) may be superceded by law, if there is a sufficient cause and necessary in a democratic society. So if the crisis is sufficiently severe you may hvae this right suspended for the time being. If the pandemic can not be curtailed by other means (which are not more draconian in nature) and continues to disrupt the everyday lives of citizens,

I do not see a legal objection against a legal obligation to vaccinate perse. However, that has to be deliberated carefully and the bar is high, so only in case there is no less severe alternative (subsidiarity) and in case the panemic causes (or continues to cause) serious social disruption.

Interesting article, read it with great pleasure and it is convincing. The only thing I wonder about is why Biden was so confident when it is sure that such remarks would fly in his face only weeks or moths later.

Knowing nothing about the circumstances surrounding or motivations for doing so other than that George Orwell once authored a text called Homage to Catalonia, I supported Catalan independence. I also supported Scottish independence because of that I thought that the "scene that celebrates itself" was too good for the United Kingdom. All that they did was put forth a referendum, though. It seems an injustice to have jailed them. — thewonder

Why would you support Catalan independence without knowing anything about it?

I do not remember the exact nature of our talk anymore :) Maybe I was right on that one. I have been wrong about a host of other things. History is easy to reconstruct after it has taken its course but difficult when one is in it. The Afghan war is really sad, I think one of the saddest episodes in recent history. It will be a black eye for Joe Biden too, especially because of his unfounded optimism regarding the Afghan military. I was heavily annoyed with the Dutch politicians who kept harping on what good things they did. In tandem we see a reconstruction of the Taliban as a much less harmful and perhaps even benevolent force. It is simply psychology writ large, the psychological necessity to downplay failure. It is heart breaking for the people who live there and who has worked for the respective governments. Dutch politicians reacted very slowly and now cannot even protect its own personnel there.

↪Ciceronianus the White Then at least with regard to the Grundnorm we're in agreement. I hated it already in my first year of law school. Hart always made the most sense, for a legal positivist that is. — Benkei

That is to me simply a product of the historical circumstances of both Kelsen and Hart. Kelsen's view is simply more etatist coming from the continental tradition with its various states and constitution. The grundnrm is nothing innocent, it is the norm by which the state proclaims itself law giver and establishes its order as the legal one for now. Where it becomes a lot thornier is when a grundnorm is established that runs against the grain of legal tradition as in the case of nazi Germany. I would hold the position that, but it is a tough bullet to bite, nazi law was not law when it ran contrary to deeply established legal principles, such as legal equality, legal certainty, some due process rights. That brings me to a position similar to that of the old Radbruch, but not based on some sort of natural law, but on ' cultural law', the set of legal principles deemed the legal order and which have been elaborated on for generations in canonic as well as secular jurisprudence.

As to you question above, I would say that if there is a law with no means of enforcement, I'm comfortable saying it's not a positive law. If there is a means of enforcement, but it's rarely enforced, it's still a law. It's just not used often. An interesting example are the marijuana laws in the US and to some degree the immigration laws. The Code is abundantly clear that pot is illegal and immigration without proper documentation is illegal, but public policy is such that these laws are formally unenforced. I think it is a reasonable question to ask what the state of the law is regarding pot, for example, in Oregon where the federal law clearly declares it illegal but it is formally declared not to be enforced. — Hanover

I do not really understand the discussion and there is a lot to go through, but why would international law somehow not be law just because there is a violator of international law powerful enough to get away with it? Enforcement mechanisms sometimes do exist in international law, but most often they do not because the treaties that govern a certain field do not allow them. Even if they do allow them, such as the Rome statute in international criminal law, than it is still for all kinds of reasons very difficult to enforce the Rome statute in practice. However, practical problems erode the efficacy of the law, not its status as law itself. Even for the US international law has force of law because it will first try to get its actioned sanctioned before flouting it.

As for the emergence of law, even HLA Hart offers in the end a sociological account if I am not mistaken. The rule of recognition in his scheme (I believe it to be influenced by Kelsen's grundnorm, but I might be wrong) is that law that is seen as such by legal professionals. The US constitution is law because of the consensus among legal practitioners and lay people alike that it is. In debates about the nature of law is about the status of legal principles and what sort of beast they are. Hart does not acknowledge them and argues for judicial discretion in hard cases. I find that unconvincing because the judge also decides what case is hard and what is not. Therefore that notion spirals into judicial discretion pure and simple and the notion that the law is what the judge had for breakfast, indeed the (caricaturised) position of the legal realists.

I do not think that is what judges do or what they should do. In continental scholarship there is a notion that is problematic.. but also telling, there is something like ' the legal order'. Our interaction with each other has, since time immemorial as lawyers like to put it, shaped our expectations vis a vis each other an created iterations and reiterations of rules that became part of our legal mental furniture. Pacta sunt servanda is one of them, as is the notion that ' time heals all wounds' and that is why we have the statute of limitation for instance. There are many more such rules, for instance that you cannot profit from your own wrong doing, or that if you paid for something without having to pay it need to be reimbursed. Whether it be international law, such as just war theory, or the pettiest breach of contract such principles play a role and became fundamental to the law.

That does not make matters easier, because principles might clash and still a weighing is in order which principle has preference in which case and how that is decided etc. However I think (with Dworkin) that such principles do bind legal professionals and they should take recourse to them when cases are judged. all this law is clay works like clay or mud on the feet and legs or judges when they arrive at a decision. Sometimes they want x, by personal preference but they cannot get there because they weght of case law, statutory law, customary law and principles are stacked against the decision.

Therefore the sources of law would be: treates, statutes, case law, customary law and legal principles. Whether or not someone here views international law as non-law is rather meaningless. It is accepted as such by legal practitioners, also those of the Us and so satisfies the condition of being law. It is also logical that they are accepted because indeed the legal order demands that promises are kept. That sometimes promises are not kept does not violate this legal principle one bit.

If meaningful interpersonal connections are the only meaning of life, then a life without any interpersonal connections is totally meaningless. — Kaveski

I generaly agree with this, tautology or not. I think meaning is not created solitary but meaning is created in exchange with others. That exchange is interpreted and the interpretation is what is called meaning. Without any other there is nothing to interpret.