Tobias, you are misinterpreting the analogy. The "one bullet" represents a "viral infection", or if we wish to be more literal, the "one bullet" can represent "a group of 1000 viral particles" (note: it takes a minimum inhalation of 1000 viral particles to create an infection.) — Roger Gregoire

Yes but that does not matter one bit. Your premise is that a viral load will only infect one person, whereas a viral load might infect 1 or 20 or a 100 people... It is you who restricts the killer to just one shot, not me. If we are all overthinking your mosquito analogy, it might be because we are all stupid or because your mosquito analgy kind of sucks... think carefully about your answer...

Instead of a mosquito, imagine there is a mad killer with a gun loaded with one bullet, in this room with the woman. If the killer is intent on killing (shooting) someone, then the woman is in grave danger. ...agreed?

Now, if another person enters into the room, is the woman now safer (with a killer with one bullet), or less safe? How about if 100 people enter this room, is the woman more safe or less safe?

The math and logic (in determining risk) is very simple and straightforward. Take the number of bullets and divide it by the number of people in the room to ascertain the risk assessment to any individual in the room.

For example, if you double the number of people, you cut the individual risk in half. ...agreed? — Roger Gregoire

The analogy is again false. The virus is not a killer with one bullet. There is not 'one'virus flying about potentially only infecting one person. There is a virus load in the room, potentially infecting people. A more apt analogy is to imagine the virus as a potential bout of insanity which potentially makes an ordinary sane person draw his or her gun and start firing of bullets en masse and randomly. It is pretty clear than that the woman is safer on her own than in the vicinity of other people, even if those other people have had some antidote against this affliction which works 90% of the time but not a 100%.

Schopenhauer is very interesting. I read him a long time ago, and phenonemologcally I am on thin ice, so if I am not up to speed bear with me. I do think that the phenomenological notion of intentionality is much more modern than Schopenhauer's notion of will. Schopenhauer's will represents an answer to the problem Kant foisted on us, the problem of the Thing in itself. It leads to all kinds of dualisms, antinomies that needed to be solved by the generation of German idealists. Hegel's soution represents an answer and Schopenhauer's radically dfferent answer is an answer as well.

I think the phneomenologists dealt with the question in a rather different way. They did not try to answer the problem of the thing in Itself, or the antinomies that it created, Phenomenology shifted the method of analysis. Instead of asking why or how our knowlege of the worl conforms to the world, they analysed how certain objects appear and how consciousness then made leap of consstructing an object at all. They would not ask the question of what the object is, but only how it appears. Here intentionality has its function. The insight thatconsciousness is always consciousness of something. One can never question consciousness in abstracto, but it always has a concrete something in mind. That shifted attention away from the Kantian table of categories and Hegels' concepts to a philosophy of consciousness 'in the world'.

Schopenhauer does not do away with the question of the thing in itself in that modern veign. He keeps the Kantian insight that the world is idea in the sense of that which comes for consciousness, (Vorstellung in german, literally, 'that which puts itself in front') However that is only an aspect of the world. Our experience is not the thing in itself, that is 'vorstellung', however, everything that as such presents itself has a common characteristic, namely that it displays a certain 'will'. When we try to analyze the world as it is represented to cosnsciousness (rational, mental) we do not get there, but when we shift our focus we may see that every object, whatever it is, is the thing that it is because of will.

I read Schopenhauer more platonically / metaphysically. Will permeates everything and instantiates itself more or less strongly in each thing. In all our boily features will might be discerned, but even in our walls, in our houses, they all bare the hallmarks of a certain will. Even the lowliest rock keeps itself in its place. Will as this energy, or drive is what is the thing in itself in Schopenhauer.

Of course everyone is right to point out I think that he is a forerunner in the turn away from rationality and towards everyday being in the world. That might well be true. The turn to will in any case influenced Nietzsche and through him Heidegger and the latter postmodernists I guess.

The various roles humans play, for sure, important and as interesting now as ever.
They are not necessarily public.
The role of a good/bad teacher might be seen in public ( school ) but also in private ( symposium/home). — Amity

No, the way roles are treated shifts over time. Not too long ago one stayed with the same employer all her life and identified with a certain profession, aptly called a 'beruf' in German, something to which you were called. Now it is much more common to switch careers and staying at the same employer is hardly heard off. With a certain role comes a certain status, especially in soceties that are highly stratified.

They are not necessarily public.
The role of a good/bad teacher might be seen in public ( school ) but also in private ( symposium/home). — Amity

I am not saying roles are only executed publically, they are defined in public, teaching is a social practice. The marks of quality are determined in te public arena. Maybe moreso for the Greeks tho
ugh then nowadays, that is my point.

a private soldier, as opposed to a general
(adjectival use) private, homely
one who is awkward, clumsy
(in the plural) one's countrymen

Why would they not 'get to practise virtue' ?
'Practising virtue' as per Virtue Ethics involves the role of 'character' (having ideal traits) rather than playing a role or engaging in public politics. — Amity

Of course words take on all sorts of meanings and develop over time. However, if you see the similarities of the various connotations in these different meanings, than its history is revealed. A private person, homely, does not get out much, will become awkward and clumsy because he does not get to realise his potential, which for the ancient Greeks was only realised in the polis. Private soldier admittedly is off, but I am thinking that, especially if the private solider is opposed to the general, the 'idiot' just obeys commands, does what he is told without question. That fits in nicely with the idea of the idiot as the private man, the man who actually did not have the means and luxury to enter into political (as in polis, concerning the polis) affairs. Usually indeed a country man, one residing outside the walls. They are the ones who do not have a say in how affairs are ran, a commoner who just toils.

The virtues, the ideal traits, were cultivated in Greek thought. They needed work. You acquired them in practice. However, in order to gain that practice, you would have to engage in it. The highest virtue, the one closest to the essence of man, was virtue of good political deliberation. Man was 'zoon politikon', a political animal.

I do still think you confuse me with an ancient Greek though, or think I agree with the picture painted, that is not the case. I don't know where your animosity comes from. I just think, contra Hanover, NOS and you apparently, that engaging in the genealogy of concepts and words is worthwhile.

Banno's OP, as I read it, links the idea of a certain crrent mentality, the mentality that one should look out for one's own, to a certain conception of life, caught in the term 'idiot'. The wise man realises he is not on his own. The idiot does not.

Hmmm. 'One leaves the household and engages in political affairs'. 'One' would be a man, no ? — Amity

Oh yessiree, they were men alright, men all the way, you betcha!

So, those left behind ( wives/children) taking care of home affairs/studying wouldn't get to practise virtue ? — Amity

Yes indeed and women were not considered rational, though Aristotle much to his credit, considered them partly so. Children were considered not rational yet, but being potentially rational, if they were male at least. So yes, they were initiated in political life and hence learned virtuous behaviour. Women also had virtues, just not those connected to reason, therefore necessarily of lesser quality than men's.

This doesn't sound right - nor does the 'playing roles' bit.. and why 'necessarily public' ? — Amity

Well, it might not sound right to you, but I am not trying to please you, I am just giving a rough sketch of howthe Greeks viewed political life. Roles were important n Greek life as the still are in virtue ethics. A good lawyer plays a different role than a good judge for instance. Roles are necessarily public because they are defined publically. In society we play social roles, espeicalliy in stratified Greek society.

It would be helpful if citations were provided to support your understanding. — Amity

Oh really, because that is, like, so bloody common on this philosophyforum. Well here you go: M.Sandel, (2009), Justice, What is the right thing to do?, Penguin books, Chapter 8 on Aristotle. (for the parts on political ife justice and 'telos')
T. W. Adorno, (1965). Metaphysics, concept and Problems, 2000 ed. Polity Press, especially lectures 1 through 5, for metaphysical and teleological thought in Aristotle.

It might be me, but I reckon them better sources than wikipedia...

Now, I am not saying I subscribe to Greek thought in these matters, just telling you what these concepts meant, as far as I know of course, not being part of ancient Greek culture. It goes without saying I do not support ancient Greek views on gener relations, nor would I endorse Aristotle's defense of slavery for that matter. That does not mean ancient Greek ideas are not worth studying as we have copied a lot from ancient Greek thought, as delivered to us by the Romans and the Jewish/Islamic scholars of the middle ages

My point being that the etymology of words doesn't command meaning, but usage does. What words mean in one time period or context can be different than in others. — Hanover

Yes, but words also have historic connotations and these connotations and implicit hierarchies are reiterated when these words are used. The changing meaning of words is not a procedure that runs willy nilly but a historical process that actually shows similarities as @Cuthbert, described for similar terms, like plebeian. The comoner becomes a derogatory term. Just as the whole word 'common' has attracted pejorative connotation.

Militaristic uber-christian werewolves.... what is there not to love?
In my defense, it works when grading student papers.

When is an altruist out of a job? — Agent Smith

The man speaketh in riddles.... is there someone out there that can translate these sybline musings for me?

I can't explain it any further — Agent Smith

What do you mean? Maybe you agree with my point above, or maybe not. Maybe you think it is pointless to explain it to me. Or maybe you just want to bow out of the thread... I did not notice any explanation in your posts above,

What's all the hullabaloo about making your kids, if you have one, stand on their own two feet, make the independent i.e. not have to rely on others? — Agent Smith

Well if it really means not having to rely on others I wish them the best of luck. Modern society hangs together by relying on others, or are your kids not allowed to visit the supermarket, to call plumbers, travel the roads or take planes?

What they mean by standing on your own to feed is to think independently and critically. Kids are taught to put themselves 'out there', taking their place on the highway of life. It is exactly in interaction that they are independent and stand on their own two feet, being able to resist when necessary and argue their point. That exactly was the Greek ideal and we still honor it. How unfortunate it is then that we have a strand of thinking telling you you are all alone and all you should care for is yourself. It leads to contradictions, socially as well as psychologically. Firstly, the common good which enables people to thrive is seen as weak, causing us to bite the hand that feeds us. Secondly, success is portrayed as the product of your choice, but so is failure, transferring a huge burden of responsibilty for situations that are the product of luck and collective actuon far more than they are up to choice.

Here's wisdom: One who looks out for thier own interests at the expense of others is, quite literally, an idiot. — Banno

It makes sense in the context of ancient Greek life. The highest form of life for the Greeks was political life. One leaves the household and engages in political affairs, affairs concerning the polis. An idiot (a person not involved in public affairs) does not do this and therefore also does not get to practice virtue, which for the anicent Greeks was attached to playing roles and roles are necessarily public. So yes not engaging in public life makes one an idiot.

So egoism is idiocy. I prefer a system in which everyone is egoistic, the way it actually is I believe, and it all works out. I've seen people being called out for thinking for someone else. Doing that is considered a sign of arrogance. Every man for himself, people, every man for himself. — Agent Smith

Thinking for someone else is arrogance, deliberating and putting your ideas on the line in public life is not. In fact you do it yourself on this very forum Every man for himself is ludicrous. How does every man for himself get to to construct waterworks, sanitation, organise defense? In fact the genealogy of the word idiot as someone being on his own, nicely shows what the common mantra of every man for himself does. Greed is good is not just a business moddel. It leads literally to 'depolitisation', making it easier to control. An idiot is a far easier target to control than a mass or union. That is why the age of individualism became an age of idiocy, of evey opinion counting and the selfie becoming the highest form of enjoyment.

Reason's Greetings, my friend! :sparkle: — 180 Proof

Happy winter reasoning friend! :sparkle:

Anyone that advises (or mandates) that we socially isolate and clothe our healthy immune population is LOGICALLY IGNORANT -- doing so greatly INCREASES THE DEATHS to our vulnerable population, and PERPETUATES the further mutations of these killer mosquitos. — Roger Gregoire

No of course not. Your thought experiement is predicated on the mosquito (or the virus) stinging once. The problem with a virus is, when it stings it multiplies itself, increasing the risk, not fading away in anonymity. If vaccinated people can become infected and might spread the disease it makes sense to slow down social contact lest the virus copies itself, increasing instead of descreasing the risk.

(2) we are aspects of the universe who must make as much sense of it (via myths, metaphysics, arts, histories, natural sciences, etc) as we can in order to help ourselves survive and our descendents thrive despite the universe. — 180 Proof

Indeed!
We are sense making creatures. That is simply what we do, we try to make sense of things. that presupposes that there is something to make sense of and that in turn presupposes that, in the end, it makes sense somehow even if we do not fathom it. (if it was not, then there would not be something to make sense of) Even if you declare something totally absurd you have made sense of it in a way in the sense that you have brought it under a category of somprehension. You have said something about it, somthing purportedly true.

Whether it really really really makes sense or not, is a question of metaphysics of the impossible kind. We want to say something, but simply can't because we have no access to it. We can't speak (or think or reason) about it. We have simply determined the rational to be real. We can try to do otherwise but will neven succeed, or necessarily 'relapse' in our rationalistic presuppositions.

(Also, I was lying about reading it all. I read like 10 pages and went ehh I think i get the gist of it.) — john27

:rofl: :cool:

It was meant to provide a kick start to @John McManis! ;)

Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica. I like the way he organizes his thoughts. — john27

Really? That was what a prof. told me once... I think he tried to murder me or at least keep me fro contacting him ever again. Here is a link to every 9453 pages ... good luck! ;)

I liked The Penguin History of Philosopy by D.W. Hamlyn. The reviews though are not favourable. lol.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/166553.The_Penguin_History_of_Western_Philosophy

I still think the best way is through an introductory course, taught to you live. Even though it might be shallow, it gives you an overview, something to work with and you are motivated to work your way through the texts. Philosophy is still very dialogical I feel.

Well, to complicate the picture even further, the branches of governemnt are themselves not untitary. For instance the executove branch is usually comprised of different departments and these departments might start ars of all against all as well. So even if the executive 'wins' the war you describe, the question is which department has won control of the executive branch. You might be thinking of the president, but no president rules alone. So the queestion is still one of influence.

To curb this from happening, a number of institutional checks and balances are normally built in, like negotiations, often behind closed doors. Still, it is not an uncommon sight. In the European Union for instance, there is frequent infighting among the different departments headed by the various commissioners. In the legislative branch similar tugs of war are imaaginable, especially in multi party systems. In the EU further complicated by national allegiances.

So yes, Hobbesian wars of all against all are imaginable and these squabbles generally do not result in more efficiency unless a power grab takes place perhaps. If you are more intereste in this topic I suggest taking a look at the literaure on governance, there is a wealth of information out there.

We always try to gauge what we deserve and what others deserve, but how is any such thing measured objectively? Do we deal in just more or less than one another or can we find real world measurable things to compare in reference to deservingness? We certainly live different lives and experience different outcomes, but can we ever really determine we deserve our lot in life? — TiredThinker

Deserving is not objectively determined, but politically determined. I tend to look at Michael Sandel's 'Justice' when analyzing deserts, because A. he does not downplay the question of desert, and B. his account is historical and discursive instead of actuarial.
I think we cannot avoid questions of desert, even though we might disagree on the question of free will. We are creatures of value and we relate the actions of others to ourselves. We tend to value actions we consider virtuous and condemn those we consider vicious. what we consider virtuous is no constant matter but depends on the society in which we live and what it concerns virtuous. Those depend on political eliberation, custom, habit etc. That is not to reduce them to whim or to say they are 'merely' socially constructed. They are social constructions but they are necessary cnstructions nonetheless since valuation is I think part and parcel of our phenomenological 'embodied' experience of the world. As such some measures of desert seem to be more or less constant, even though they show a different face. We tend to value those that do not harm us and protect us over those who cause us pain.

Every society therefore has to engage in determining what virtues it tends to reward and what vices it tens to punish. A society that thrives on warlike traditions might reward military bravery and prowess while a society that thrives on trade and non violent conflict resolution might value persuason and argumentation. There is therefore no 'objective' in the sense of ahistorical way of determining deserts. What we can say though is that determining who deserves what is a necessarily political question and being cast out of the process, having no voice in other words, deprives you of some necessary feature of belonging to a society an therefore limiting of your 'being at home' in society.

I therefore disagree with @180 Proof when he states that deserving is just getting what you can take or what you cannot avoid. Even criminals might concur that there punishment was just even tough they tried hard to avoid it. Similarly, one feels the waiter deserves a tip, even though this is harmful to you and can easily be avoided. We tip even if we know we will never see the bar again. The reason is that we tend to value living virtuously, even though we not always do. Everyone does embrace values, even though that means limiting their own will. What we do want is our chance to reflec on them and to have a say in choosing them. We want the opportunity co command, instead of only following.

Well my immediate reaction is that you are depressed and therefore you see their optimism in a negative light. The question you ask should in principle be rephrased, "why are idealistic, optimistic people depressing to me? That has psychological causes. You feel you are stuck in life and they seem not to be. That causes resentment and further depression.

That said: a lot of 'optimism' we see nowadays, for instance in slogans like 'life is what you make of it', or 'you just have to be yourself', 'success is a choice', are not really optimistic or motivattional, though they are shrouded in motivational garb. They lay responsibility at your own feet and do not give you any clue what to do with it. In that way, for someone who is depressed they add insult to injury because if you are not successful (or feel you are not) than you apparently have not been paying attention or tried hard enough. That of course depresses. In the OP you seem to switch from discussing optimistic people to the agruments they give. These should be kept apart. I think perhaps you have nothing against optimistic people but the phrases they use nowadays. The depression those words cause is unfortunate, but not wholly unexpected. You becoming depressed over them has to do with them speaking to you on an emotional level, but you did not yet unmask them for what they are, hollow phrases that have in fact nothing to do with optimism.

From my point of view, I think, according to Ockham's razor that both Objective and Absolute Idealism are the same:

- One absolute being.
- the Objective things are present Objectively, but not Materially.
- The One absolute being is both the Perceiver and the Perceived. — Salah

Thanks @tim wood :)

Care to unpack these sentences because theymake no sense to me. Do you think that for absolute idealists things are not materially present?

@god must be atheist Well... I am not thinking the end of the world is nigh yet. And I am also sorry for switching my chosen song,, from the brilliant Zager and Evans to the euqally brilliant Cohen. It is chilling, yes, I agree. I also think constant monitoring is far more invasive than an obligation to be vaccinated. I do not know if it is a 'test' for a roll out in the West. I do think that governments are always prone to resort to mass surveillance. This surveillance system is 1984'ish.

Too much nuance, my friend, for somebody else's homework. :smirk: — 180 Proof

True 180, but I needed the jogging.... has been ages since I dealt with this stuff. And I am a procrastinator at heart... Now back to grading someboy else's homework...

In the year 2020....

2021 is simply a continuation of the epoch that has started after 2020. We are in the throes of scientific, social and religious change. We could call it, borrowing a term of Ulirich Beck, reflexivity, but it is a reflexivity on steroids. We have had a number of realizations that indicate the frailty of our instututions. Science cannot find a (social) cure for corona, democracy is under threat in the US and the EU and a chasm has opened up between the old with their faith in techo-fixes and the young with a sense of hedonistic romanticism.

Lenny said it all...

How come you know the truth?

This sounds like a homeowrk question, but ok. I define does notions a bit different than 180 Proof does. I think the differentiation is made by Hegel himself actually when he described Firchet's system as subjective idealism, Schelling's as objective idealism and his own as absolute idealsim.

In his view, Fichte, localized the relation we have in the world too much in the 'I', in the subject. Every experience for Fichte is localized in consciousness and so the world as it appears to consciousness is the world as it is. Philosophy therefore is the reexamination of self cosciousness, what does consciousnes do when it constructs a world out of its data.

Schelling in turn prioritsed the objective side. Consciousness is only consciousness within a world that develops itself within a certain way. As far as I know Schelling coined the term 'world spirit' to indicate that the world develops in a certain rational kind of way and from this development emanates the structures and institutions that define our reality, law, the state, science etc.

Hegel tried to reconcile the systems of Fichte and Schelling stating that it is neither subject, not object that should be prioritized, but that these are terms that themselves develop from the way the that thinking (the idea, or 'the movement of the concept') develops. The subject and object are different and at the same time essentially the same, or at least springing forth from the same source (the absolute). The difference between the two is both ineluctable and untenable. It is untenable, because we know consciousness is consciousness of a world and in itself it is empty. What is given is given to it by the world (object) that it examines. At the same time though we can never see ourselves as merely part of that 'world spirit', we also take ourselves as different from it. 'The world' does not exist, only my world exisst. So between subject and object there is a tension of different, but also a realization of identity.

The difference in a nutsell being that for Schelling and his objective idealism, subjectivity is encompassed by the objective and itself mostly illusory, delivered to the whims of objective reality, while for Hegel the subjective and objective are both poles that should not be absolutised. They stem from a unity, a world that is itself both subject and object, comprising an inner tension as it moves and develops in an objective way. but does not do so whimsical, but self reflectively, through our work and objectification within it (in domains like work, science, religion, law).

↪Tobias
Actually my post was directed toward Bret and the op. I just inserted a line from your post. so I put quotations to give proper credit to you, for that phrase. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ohh, I misinterpretete that in that case. My apologies :)

I suppose if the causal connection between the person's will, and the occurrence could be established, then the person is legally responsible. But doesn't "magic" imply that the causal connection remains hidden? So I think "magick" is an oxymoron. You are saying that the person is necessarily the cause, in a situation where there is no evidence to conclude that the person is necessarily the cause. And the legal issue you raise is just a sham, because you are asking if the person ought to be held responsible in a situation where the person cannot be proven to be responsible. Of course that is a non-starter. — Metaphysician Undercover

You did not read my post very carefully. A. your definition of magick is not wildly shared. Magick does not mean that the causal connection is hidden, though in our world the mechanism would be pretty miraculous. However, as I did in my post, assuming that magick does exist, if I may by way of reciting certain formulas cause a creature to appear I am just as much the cause of its appearance as I am when I call my dog and command him to attack.

B. The legal question whether someone is to be held responsible is a different question from whether his or her responsibility can be proven. If some commits the perfect crime and murders his wife, then he is still responsible for her death. He still needs to be acquitted of the murder because it cannot be proven, but that does not mean he is not responsible for it. You may well object that magick does not exist, as assumption I share, but the whole point of the post was to show what could or would happen if it did. Such exercises are not uncommon. The pentagon drafted a scenario analysis of what to do in the case of a zombie apocalypse. By creating such what if scenario's you may understand your own legal and political arrangements better.

The forces of the law are authorized to use any form of magic in pursuit of their duties.

Tobias is a plant for the council of Sharn confirmed. — fdrake

Hah! That is cool. However do consider the anti-constitutional nature of the last line. It is the criminal code of magick a police state would draft. I have no protection against true seeing spells, against clairvoyance, I might be charmed into cooperating against my own interest or to extort a confession etc. It would accommodate a society of mass magical surveillance.

I do not believe magick is real, but that does not make the question of regulation less interesting. Such hypotheical question can give rise to interesting puzzles related to regulation. A colleague and I were toying with the idea of organising a conference on zombies and law for instance (think zombies and inheritance law, does the property return to the undead or is being undead suffieciently different from being alive? do they have rights to bidily integrity in the same way as live humans etc?

I am sure that if magick were a feature of current society it would be regulated, just as everyhing else, but it brings its own special problems. First we would need to know if the use of magick is detectable. For instance clairvoyance or mind reading might contravene rights to privacy if practices, but if it can be done undetected we will have a problem with reinforcing norms against practicing it. I guess there will be information campagns informing the clairvoyant about how to practice their skill ethically. If it can be detected the authorities might well outlaw the practice of magic and reserve it for professionals who have had an education in its use, but ban it for everyone else.

With more interfering magick such as changing weather patterns and summoning wild animals etc. laws need to be in place governing it because that might have severe social consequences. Imagine the impact on sea and air travel when whether patterns could change willy nilly. Imagine also the magickal conflicts that would take place when say a farmer summons rain and a hotel owner sunshine for his guests. The summoning of wild animals of course depends on the animal summoned. Summoning a wild bear in the streets might well lead to a manslaughter charge if the bear indeed kills, or reckless endangerment if it does not, but could. There would of course also be rules for the well being of such animals summoned by the conjurer in question.

The state would of course use claivoyance in the tactical police units mentioned by Jamalrob but that leads to interesting questions in regard to the principle of legality in criminal law. Can I be arrested if I ahve not committed the act yet? Or should such teams limit themselves to changing the conditions in the situation in order for a suspect not to commit a crime. Guidelines will certainly have to be issued.

A further question to consider is if everyone will have such magickal capabilities or only a few. If a few have than some individuals will be qualitatively different then others in a scale not seen here. How do we regulate them in orer for them not to grab power and how do we regulate the others not too mistrust and hate them? In short we would have to weave a dense web of regulation, but no doubt that would be done if magick was real.

edit: in some countries the use of magick is still regulated. In Iran magick and witchcraft are outlawed and fall under ' hudud crimes' on a par with a felony.

@clemogo

This is a quote from German Philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte: “What sort of philosophy one chooses depends, therefore, on what sort of man one is; for a philosophical system is not a dead piece of furniture that we can accept or reject as we wish, it is rather a thing animated by the soul of the person who holds it.”

Philosophers, just like anyone else are children of their time. It is impossible to overcome every bias and indeed, what you hint at with 'you can never know if you have overcome your biases' is known also as the problem of self reflection. We might engage in self reflection but we need self reflection to know if the self we are refecting on is really accurately represented, an infinite regress.

However, I think you push the envelop too far when you say that "the only reason they ascribe to these theories is because of their personal arbitrary bias". They base themselves on arguments and these arguments themselves have their base in logic or in any case on some intuitive level that people grasp through a certain like mindedness. We are all biased, but we also have a lot in common. It is through this commonality (of having a world for instance, of being placed in time, of having bodily needs and desires, of recognizing the laws of logic etc) that philosophers construe arguments. So while one has to be as far as possible be aware of bias, this needs not be absolutized into full blown relativism.

Indeed many philosophers have tried to come up with non contextualized systems and arguments, Rawls for instance and Kant. They are not the be all and end all of philosophy or impervious to critique, but their arguments still appeal to us, even though we live in a different time from them. At the same time one can have more affinity with a Rawlsian line of reasoning, or with someone like McIntyre. We all have philosophical tastes, but that is no problem as long as our arguments are sound and persuasive.

A world with evil and goodness in it is definitely a more interesting place than a world devoid of evilness. — Wittgenstein

A world with only goodness is untinkable. the least good would by definition be evil. The concepts define themselves opposite to each other.

Suffering from evil has its own joy and lessons. — Wittgenstein

Really? I think they are lessons I can do without, at least by my own experience. And those lessons are useful only because evil exists, if it wasn't there there would be no need for lessons.

Activism and passive acceptance are both inadequate when it comes to creating a strong force in life, they should exist but under the service of a higher blind unjustified drive. — Wittgenstein

I do not understand this jump. Why should anything exist "under a higher blind unjustified drive"?

We should replace marxist utopian ideals and gritty realism/ pragmatism on the other hand (overall contemporary attitude) with an irrational blind will and let it take its direction.That is not to say we should view people who hold different viewpoint from us as being right in their own way. — Wittgenstein

The problem is that that irrational blind will often leads to destructuve directions and opposes the blind irrational will of others leading to clashes. Most people do not like those ensuing conflicts and channeled this blind irrational will. It is still there of course, but more domesticated, easier to control.

Post modernism has a big fault, it doesn't allow an individual or a group to assert itself in a forceful manner. — Wittgenstein

That is hardly PoMo's fault. Christianity was not big on it either.

We must learn to admire fundamentalist, terrorists, extremists AS FAR AS their determination and solidarity is concerned. — Wittgenstein

Sure and then lock them up. Well not fundamentalists and extremists per se, people are allowed to hold extremist views, right.

Ironically, a terrorist can live a more meaningful life compared to an average person held hostage by postmodernism — Wittgenstein

I very much doubt it. the biographies of most terrorists read like long list of failures in society, addiction, mental health problems etc. Before you know it you find your leg blown off by a US drone as well. Nahh, just romanticism.

I can almost feel a return of religion in a new shape once the postmodern period is over. People will become religious once again in the sense of having unshakable convictions. — Wittgenstein

That is well possible. People like ushakable convictions.

Goebbels was the minister of propaganda, no? There is no paradox. Goebbels did not say everything he said was a lie, he just iterated what every good propagandist knows, that if a lie is reiterated long enough, people will eventually believe it. What he thinks about anything is irrelevant. He might have believed them, or he might not. Maybe it shows some sort of relativistic spirit, but that is not necessary. He just indicated that people could be made to believe anything, making him a master of propaganda.

That was my point. I don’t know exact ins and outs and it seems to vary from state to state. — I like sushi

That is correct and such concepts are hard to wrap your head around if you are not from that legal system. I find provocation a very elulusive concept. We do not have it in Dutch law, that expplains it. The theoretical problem for me is that provocation seems to provide an excuse, not a justification. There is a difference between the two. My conduct is understandable, because I am seeing my wife getting raped and that causes a fit of rage or overwhelming desire to free her. I am being rpovoked, and so mentally I am not culpable (no mens rea). Yet, on the objective side my conduct is than still wrong, not justified but excused. I would rather say that in such a situation my conduct is justified, because I fear for the life of my wife. I was in fact acting in lawful defense of others.

The difference in practice is this: if my conduct is merely excused than countervailing force might itself be justified, because my attack is not, it is merely excusable. If I am justified though, then automatically his counter attack is unjustified, because he responds to a lawful attack on my part, by killing me. However, I ffully acknowledge I am no expert when it comes to the rules on provocation. Moreover, US criminal law seems little concerned about the difference between justification and excuse, much to Fletcher's dismay.

The results are often very similar though and the hypothetical I gave isquite paradigmatic for conflicting self defense claims. As saidd, under US law it may also be settled via the felony murder law, every loss of life resulting from a felony is attributable to the one committing the felony (out of my head).

A more accurate scenario would be if you and the X went to a BLM protest, saw Harry, a weird teenage kid wielding an assault rifle, and chased after him in a threatening manner with the intent of disarming him, and perhaps beating him up a bit for good measure.

A weird teenage kid once pulled out a rifle on me when I was a teen. I got the hell out of there because I knew he was stupid enough to use it, regardless of the consequences. — praxis

No, it is not a more accurate scenario because it is a much more muddled situation. I am not passing judgment on the Rittenhouse case, but merely illuminating a point of law about self defense. In between the extremes there is often an area with 50 shades of grey. The point that I was making is that it is not always the case that one may respond with defensive force in a life threatening situation. Not whether in this particular situation the defendent might have responded with defensive force.

First, how does the husband know that his wife is being raped and not a masochist cheating on her husband?

It seems obvious that in the act of committing a violent act, you have no right to defense from others trying to stop your violent act.

The fact that this example is being used in a thread which has nothing to do with the Rittenhouse case or circumstances is an example of a red herring. — Harry Hindu

Not at all, you asked a theoretical question (is defending yourself from being killed always justified) and I am giving you a theoretical answer through an excample. It is indeed not always justified.

Moreover, you are changing the hypothetica, in that case it would be putative self defense of the part of the husband, but it is of no concern since that was not the point of the hypothetical.

If the rapist kills the husband I think you can define that as 'provocation' (raping his wife) so claims to self-defense would be very hard to call but I am sure there are some other mitigating circumstances (convoluted even!) that could warrant a claim of 'self-defense' - state depending if we're talking about US in general here. — I like sushi

I would find that very hard to belief. Self defense generally requires defense against an imminent and unlawful attack. Me rescuing my wife is in fact defense of others, his counter reaction therefore is not a response against an unlawful attack. The terminology might be diifferent but unless I see it I hold on what I have learned from Fletcher''Rethinking Criminal Law', a great theorist from whom I learned what I know of anglo/American criminal law and of course from my dear colleague, a US lawyer who taught together with me in Amsterdam .

But well, maybe in the US they construct it through provocation, but with their strict felony murder rule I think you would be hard pressed as a lawyer when you are on the rapist's team.

Then your position is that all rapists deserve to be killed by their victim's (X-)husband? — Harry Hindu

Not al all, nor is that an implication of my position

Strange that you interpret a factual statement as a demand. Maybe the information in this thread is inaccurate, biased, or doesn't take into consideration all facts that have been given. There is no problem in asking questions. You didn't have to answer. — Harry Hindu

That is true. There is useful information though in this thread, also addressing your questions. Well, any information on a philosophy forum, might be inaccurate of biased ;). Anyway sorry if I came off as harsh, but I reacted to not telling anything useful. Of course you may always ask questions, fair enough.

This doesn't tell me anything useful. What are the circumstances in which it is OK to defend yourself vs not being OK to defend yourself?

It seems to me that if you have the right to life, liberty and happiness, then you have the right to defend yourself from others trying to take these things away from you. — Harry Hindu

Well now Harry, think, think.... what could those circumstances be.... Ohh I know. Say you are in the process of brutally raping my wife, choking her (I am divorced by the way, but that's beside the point, it is not a real scenario, but a hypothetical you see) and I come to her rescue wielding a lead pipe. You out of fear for your life stab me in the eye with the long hair pin conveniently located on my wive's night stand. The pin penetrates my eyeball, enters the brain which sibsequently causes my legs to quake and I collapse to the floor.... dead!

Now, witness hwat happens in court... You get convicted for manslaughter (non-premeditated murder) or even felony murder. So no, unfortunately Harry you did not have the right of self defense in that situation.

By the way, it is not my duty to tell you anything useful. You frame it as a demand, but normally I get paid to provide legal education. You could have found this information in the thread.

It's not a matter of what someone deserved. It's a matter of do you have the right to defend yourself from being killed? — Harry Hindu

And the answer to that question as offered up so often in this thread is sometimes you have and sometimes you do not.

My apologies for derailing the thread. I should not debate this kind of stuff in the Rittenhouse thread so, by all means go back on topic if you like. I belief that such a discussion with NOS4A2 is something like a broken record on the forums, it is still a bit new for me, but again sorry to derail the thread. I will from now on only answer points of law in this thread.