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.

Well, I reckon psychopathic behaviour can on an individual level bring a lot of success. Civil society is a bit of a collective action problem after all. We all play our parts an the person that is able to play by the rules when it suits them and not when it suits them better, has a comparative advantage. Dutch criminologist Frank Bovenkerk, a respected Dutch criminologist reckons that the same traits which make a good mafia boss also make a good CEO. Here is the lonk to the article, it is behind a pay wall though, you if you are from an institution that has access it is readable otherwise you have to live by the abstract...
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008381201279

Sounds like a reasonable longing to me. But would she say "to hell with your mind and your money", or just "to hell with your mind"? — Apollodorus

I do not get it, mind does not equate money. I do not think any girl fancied me because of my lack of money...

Is it not just as valid or invalid to say: "You don't love a person because you love his mind; you only start to love his mind after you start to love his person". Why is love for the body somehow seen as trivial and the mind somehow seen as exalted?
(I am longing for a woman to say, I love you for your body, to hell with your mind, but that aside ;) )

Metaphysics. Over a decade ago, influenced mostly by various thread discussions with Tobias, I'd reconsidered and thereby gradually translated my vacuous, scientistic, interpretation of 'positive metaphysics' (as useless as tits on a bull) into an intensively critical, 'negative metaphysics' (apophasis), which, among other things, has 'solved' the great jigsaw puzzle of my many disparate philosophical concerns. — 180 Proof

That is a nice compliment 180, thank! Indeed those discussions formed me too quite a bit. Under that influence and under the influence of people I met at the time I was here less I shifted perspective somewhat. I do not know if it is changing my mind, but now my central concern would be some ineluctable 'more' over and above what metaphysics has to offer. A fundamental impossibility of metaphysics or thought to reach. I think indeed you were the first one to confront me with that. It is similar to a Heideggerian 'zwischen' I guess or some other fundamental category of 'not that', a difference.

Also I focus much more strongly on the role of the body in metaphysics. I cannot be called a materialist since I still hold that the categories of thought are mental and that without this categorical ordering there 'is' nothing, but if we want to know how we think we cannot dispel the body, as that fundamentally does the talking. So I switched from 'logic' to phenomenology perhaps. that said, I am rusty nowadays, I have done more in law and in sociology which also shifted at least my approach. At the recent philosophy conference I was the only one with a methodology paragraph.... felt slightly over dressed. :D

In other words, the external world is constituted by force (different levels of force) and appearances or details do not exist there independently, it is only stimuli promoters what lead to appearances or details when mind does its job using the five human senses. — Nelson E Garcia

Why would 'force' exist independently? to me it seems you are rethinking Kant in a way. Read his trnascendental deduction. What you call 'force' he called 'ding an sich' or noumenon. To me it seems that 'existence' does indeed not exist independently, whatsoever. that does not mean existence is any less real. If I dream of a beautiful dark haired girlfriend, it is damn waste if I wake up and se turns out not to exist.

As for myself, I'm firing random shots, hoping I might hit something. A few interesting results (see my reply to 180 Proof) but nothing really substantive. As for myself, I'm firing random shots, hoping I might hit something. A few interesting results (see my reply to 180 Proof) but nothing really substantive. — TheMadFool

Alludes to "other ways" of seeing the world. I thought you had something specific in mind, that's all. — TheMadFool

Nahh now you are being too modest again. :) That was not the intention of my remark. I think you like the exploration and so do I. Let's try. Do you know the books of Orhan Pamuk, "the Black Book" and "Foucault's Pendulum" of Umberto Eco?They are both excellent and both have similar theme, the reading into the world of meanings, which somehow relate and form a story. I think irrespective of the light of reason, that we are storytelling beings. Now that you prod me a bit, that other way of seeing might relate to the meaning which we invest in the word. Those are not 'reasonable', in the sense that they are disinterested an 'objective'. As a Dutch poet once said "we are Gods in the depths of our minds", with which he means that we all have the idea that the world is 'my story'.

Maybe those are the shadows you allude to. I do not think though they will ever be eradicated by the light. The "I" is a category of thought, maybe even a necessary condition for knowledge so it will not disappear. The stars in the casino also allude to this theme, they refer to 'us', "You are the stars", they say, affirming that which we hold ourselves to be in the depth of our minds. That way of seeing is as real as the scientific way since waking up from the illusion is impossible. So maybe there is a trail and you were right...

Fine, apologies accepted, hatchett buried :) But would you care to explain what you mean? I would not mind to elaborate, but I wrote quite a lengthy post, trying to unpack the social nature of reason, so what element would you like to explore so I know where you like to spar a bit further?

I am also not sure I fully agree to what I wrote above myself. I put it in too stark terms. 'Regimes of truth' are social, as per Foucault, but I think there has to be some kind of common understanding, some laws of thought we refer to as 'reason'. I do think formal logic does not get us very far though because of its absence of any content. The challenge for me would than be to shed some light (sic) on what they are. The skeptical practice, yes, but what would that amount to, My ideas on the (post)modern demise of reason though still stands. I am not afraid of too much light, I am afraid we are burying it in rather obscurantist notions of blame and guilt.

You've picked up the scent. Magnifique! So, are you going to follow it or not or are you already on the trail? — TheMadFool

Are you a condescending prick or merely masking your own insecurity?

And I fully agree with you on this - this is why I said that "initiate and gives the situations its content or opportunity".
I think that sometimes my english fails when I try to convey a thought properly...and now I marked where the emphasis is in that line of thought... — Iris0

Ohh I think it is fine. And anyway, I should be able to look through that. What intrigues me is what you hold to be that will that "initates and gives situations if opportunity" What is the initiative and what is the kind of opportunity that is provided? How is it determined? What content does the will add to the situation? As per Nietzsche 'will to power' for instance, or Spinoza's conatus, drive, or Sarter's 'nothingness' seemingly indicating absolute freedom. On that I wonder where you stand. (Those thinkers are just examples, not that I want to draw them into the conversation or quibble about them).

yes - but without any doubt - if and only if - you actually go (an act of will) you have the chance to win or lose - if you do not go (also an act of will) you can never ever never win nor lose. — Iris0

Well I either go or not go. Where does my will come in? You seem to hold to the following image: I want to go, than by conscious movement I set my body in motion and I go to the casino. However, there is not a little me within me, there is no 'soul' inside the machine of my body.

What determines whether you go or not? We are not completely free in those choices. In fact neurology considers them by and large predetermined. So whether I go is not necessarily a product of my own complete freedom.

What I would find interesting is to what extent we see 'reason' as influencing these choices, or indeed 'will'. The Mad Fool likes to dim reason in order to make other features visible. I find it an interesting proposal and I think it is exactly what we are doing now. 180 argues forcefully that reason should not be dimmed because there what we see when it is dimmed is distorted and obscure.

so rather than luck or chance it is the human will I would say that initiate and gives the situations its content or opportunity. — Iris0

I doubt that for two reasons, at least when you mean with will the everyday conception of free will. First, human will might be directed at a certain result, but there are so many factors that interfere that you cannot oversee the consequences of your actions. When I choose to go to the casino I might win or might lose. When I might win I may become happy, but I might also be robbed of it after I leave because someone saw I won. All these events are beyond my will. Secondly, my choices are to a large extent determined. I might be a gambler who loves the casino and goes or I might be the careful type who does not. I have not chosen my character.

Philosophically though, I think the point is to what this will is directed. When you say, 'in the end it is will', than you take a turn in the history of philosophy, will is opposed to reason, as Schopenhauer was opposed to Hegel. I do not disagree with you there. However, then the question would be what motivates this 'force of will'. Is it free decision making? That I doubt for the reasons laid out above, but other than that, there are many candidates, will to power, drive, love...

The concept of stochastic variable (chance or luck) does in fact exist - but not the way we use the concepts we normally call chance or luck - because you cannot have the luck if you do not go to the casino and bet there... now can you? — Iris0

The question of how to deal with luck and necessity are rather crucial in Western philosophy. Necessity is represented by Ananke, the goddess of fate and she was generally feared by the Greeks and even by their Gods. In our language we still have the word fate which has a bad connotation (to seal one's fate). Our fate is to die, dust to dust, ashes to ashes. This has the connotation of, earth, the world below us. there is also a different concept, 'fortuna', Tyche in Greek relating to destiny. Destiny is akin to ananke or necessity but has a much more positive connotation. A destiny is a 'destination' a place to reach. This destination is generally associated with places 'higher'. You 'reach for the stars', 'the only way is up'. You are either higher or lower in the chain of command etc. What the stars in a casino do is to symbolize that through playing with fate; gambling, one may for a moment escape the clutches of necessity and acquire (a) fortune.

In this way actually reason and luck play an interesting double role. also reason is seen as a way to escape Ananke, to 'shape one's destiny'. Reason was actually man's destiny according to Aristotle, the source of its actualisation. Machiavelli thought that by using reason you could play with fate and jump from one thread of fate to another, keeping some sort of control. The difference between reason and luck is that one (reason) believes in self efficacy, the possibility of control and the other (luck) believes that one's destiny depends on outside intervention. This reason, the ability of control, or agency, is currently in twilight. Not that I think it should be though. The casino is the refuge for the unreasonable, both the man of reason and the man of luck shoot for the stars, but they believe in different weapons.

I initially misread the title of your post as an exploration about the gradual disappearance of 'reason', much like the 'twilight of the idols', the Götterdämmerung. However you do not mean it in that sense, you wonder what reason is 'forgetting' or what notions are forgotten when we embrace reason. It is rather Kantian. Kant championed reason to make room for faith. 180 objects to this idea from a rather pragmatic point of view. The times in which reason was obscured were metaphorically 'dark times', the dark ages. There is nothing that is not illuminated by reason and the bright TL light is preferable to any twilight. In both instances reason seems to be portrayed as an 'in itself', something that exists apart from us. however I would contend that reason is social. Reason is a certain way of seeing the world, but its content is socially determined.

To also interject a Nietzsche quote (who indeed seems oddly apt as a dance partner in this discussion:

“Truth is a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, anthropomorphisms, in short a sum of human relations which have been subjected to poetic and rhetorical intensification, translation and decoration […]; truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigor […]. Yet we still do not know where the drive to truth comes from, for so far we have only heard about the obligation to be truthful which society imposes in order to exist"

What we call reason is also none other than a set of rules with which we play the game of world illumination (or world construction if you will). Reason is much more than logic, logic is formal and empty, but reason is substantial. It tells us what is reasonable, which perspectives should be respected and should be denied. Now the world view that is commonly known as that of reason or 'enlightenment', is called into question thee days. Especially from the point of view of the environment, new idols and markers of reason are erected. We have discussions to give legal rights to trees for instance, we view the world as one organism and gradually we turn to the body as the locus of 'thought'. Even the argument is not safe in the age of identity politics. I am right or wrong dependent on who I am. Those notions notion soon will become 'reasonable' over time, through social change. So yes, we are in the twilight of reason, but not in the way that you intend it. Reason has become old fashioned and trite. Zarathustra is now part of the pantheon. The future men to whom he talked are alive now. They are todays millennials and they will invert all values, just like Nietzsche commanded them to do.

(I thin they finally turned me into a sociiologist instead of a philosopher :gasp: :scream:

Alright we can try our best here. I'm not saying that moral judgement is impossible in this area, only that it's more difficult and needs to be considered among other factors as well. Throughout this thread I've tried to introduce morality probably dozens of times and have tried to bring up just war theory. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes I know, but did your position do well in the debate? I think not and there might be a reason for that. I saw your jump to context and identity as an evasive maneuver in the game.

Have you considered that Palestinian authorities in the past will greatly reward the families of suicide bombers providing them with an economic incentive? Maybe bulldozing property could be considered a way of dissipating that incentive. Everything isn't about morality and a narrow focus on morality excludes other important factors. — BitconnectCarlos

Let's say that it is true, is than fair to punish them to offset and advantage that they did not ask for? You cannot play economics personally. Off course we can also bulldozer the houses down the houses of families of people who's son or daughter is into trading drugs on the basis that some of the revenues will flow to the family. We do we not do that? Why would that be? In any legal system worth its salt, reprisals are considered illegal. That is not for nothing. A state that does not punish the offender but non-offenders does not govern through law but through violence. I wonder, are the houses of settles torn down when they commit violence against Palestinians? I think not. It is actually one of the most odious violations of law.

The broader question is how the story of, say, the American civil war is told and how we come to understand it. That matters and it carries real-world repercussions. A set of facts of moral facts, say - X, Y, Z might be true and philosophically sound but this is an entirely different issue from how the bigger picture should be presented and processed and understood.

For instance, while its true that Uyghurs conducted terrorist attacks against Chinese civilians, to present overriding importance to these attacks as opposed to China's ongoing genocide is awful. — BitconnectCarlos

Ohh but I agree with you. It is very much about how the story is told. Therefore I would say we need to include as many perspectives on the story as we can. We need a number of narratives, including the confederate one, or the Israeli one. All those stories weave a tapestry.

Your last point about the Uyghurs intrigues me, because you apply the same kind of reasoning there that I would apply as well, reasoning by proportionality. You might well be right that China's strategy is reprehensible, but reasoning by proportionality is not a safe card for Israel to play. On that from too the body bags lines up on one side makes a much taller stack. You getting yourself into the waters the other posters are drawing you in.

I agree with your point, but I do still believe we need to be careful going forward. I'm perfectly content condemning certain actions or historical events, again I'm just stressing the importance of viewing certain actions and policies in a broader historical and cultural context which historically some philosophers have ignored. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, me too, but one has to be very careful to distinguish between understanding and normatively judging. The Israeli reaction can in my point of view not be seen seperable from the cataclysmic memory of the holocaust. It is an event that has changed the world at large fundamentally and probably changed the victims of it much more fundamentally. That goes a long way to understand (at least as best as you can) the position of Israel. It does not make those actions right though. I agree with you it is impossible to find som ahistorical yardstick, but whenever we judge a certain situation,, like you just id the situation of the Uyghurs, we have to as best as we can try to find some common ground. I think we can find it, that is why I love Sting's song about the Russians so much.

Who are we talking about in particular? The morality of the ground soldiers? How about NCOs or junior officers? Or maybe we could talk about the morality of senior officers like Colonels who may be the ones behind, e.g. a raid? Or are we talking about morality for the entire state of Israel? — BitconnectCarlos

I think we are talking past each other. I apologise for that. With a theory about morality I thought you meant some ethical theory, such as utilitarianism or deontology or another theory of ethics. The offiicerts, privates, civilians, they might have a position, or perspective and valid though they all are for the discussion, they do not amount to any systematic theory about right and wrong.

Just to be clear I meant to deny war crimes in this current flare-up, not across Israel's entire history. I of course acknowledge certain crimes committed by Israeli forces - Jish and Deir Yassin, for example. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok... but I do not see why having family there is important for the denial or acceptance of any war crime. It makes denial understandable, but not sound. Denial or acceptance of the claim than comes down to psychology, but not argument. The difference is that when we talk ethics we see each other as human beings with whom we have common understanding and who can judge on matters of right and wrong. When we reduce ethics to psychology we cannot. Everything becomes 'understandable' but not anymore debatable.

You're not wrong, but when I approach subjects like politics or practical action the language that I use is different from the language that a philosopher would use in a philosophy paper. If you want to you can spend time harping on this fairly irrelevant issue but I'm just going to drop it. I don't see any meaningful difference between what other posters have described Israel as and "evil. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok but would you then agree you are not talking about the same thing anymore? Here you basically say: "I am taking it personal and so I decide what words mean, irrespective of what they mean. I hold on to a similarity that I feel is such and therefore it is such irrespective of my interlocutors." You can live by that rule, but it makes discussion at least on that issue pointless. It also blunts your own arguments on this matter because you invent a meaning of a word and then you accuse others of using it. They do not ascribe to your definition of terms though and for good reason.

Who did America buy it's Land from? Who did Australia Buy it's land from? Who did Britain buy it's land from etc. — Andrew4Handel

Australia is not a person, neither is America. Technically that is not even a country.

The problem here is that lots of people want the same land for purely ideological reasons. It is an ideological conflict supported by ideologues — Andrew4Handel

Not necessarily, it is also a very real conflict about people wanting to pick olives from their own olive tree, or people being evicted from their homes. Ideology makes everything sound so nice and comfortably theoretical doesn't it?

Humans have overpopulated the world (child abuse/environmental abuse) having a child makes an unwarranted claim on resources and puts you in competition with everyone else. — Andrew4Handel

And this has to do with what exactly? By all means do not have kids if you don't want to but do not nag us with your choices.

We could just return to the the prism of survival of the fittest where nature will decide who survives and is strongest. Humans create fictional narratives to justify the claims they make such as nationality claims and ownership claims. — Andrew4Handel

Of course we could but we realized that made life nasty, poor, solitary, brutish and short. So presto we invented law and morality. Nature does not decide anything, it just is.

This conflict will not be resolved through ethical fictions rather it is either a war of attrition that will be resolved when people have had enough or the strongest will survive. — Andrew4Handel

That whole argument is circular. Who survives is by definition stronger so it does not say anything. By all means go call ethics a fiction, but do start wondering whether this forum is the place for you to be. Actually 'fictions' such as nationality, class, race, shared values and so on keep people together, whether they are 'fictions' or not.

When it comes to matters of national security, e.g. whether Israel was justified in their pre-emptive strike on Egyptian airfields in '67 applying an ethical analysis of the issue seems out of place. If an enemy mobilizes and surrounds your camp are you allowed to strike? Is that "ethical?" — BitconnectCarlos

Not at all out of place. Quite necessary I would think from the point of view of 'just war' theory. On a smaller scale it is a matter that lawyers and judges need to deal with very frequently.

There are somethings I can certainly say are wrong - massacres, for instance. Security measures such as house raids or bulldozing suicide bombers homes are not so clear. — BitconnectCarlos

Bulldozing houses seems very clear to me. A security measure is not a security measure just because it is worded so. By definition the suicide bomber is dead and the threat has dissipated. What sort of 'security' does bulldozing a family house bring? It is in fact collective punishment, reprisal on a population which runs contrary to established legal principle namely that punishment is a response to a crime. Of course security measures are allowed, but this comes down to punishment.

You could crucify any group or any country like this. Was the North in the American Civil War squeaky clean morality-wise? Of course not. Sure, we can talk about what they did wrong but to only focus on their wrongs and not the crimes of the South does seem dubious. You'd get a very slanted picture of the Civil War if that's all you were presented with. — BitconnectCarlos

Probably not, but if you want to attack Americans for their black pages in history the genocide on the Amerindians (or native Amercans whichever term you prefer) is an easier target. However, two wrongs do not make a right. So Israels actions do not suddenly become moral because those of the Americans in preceding centuries were immoral.

Part of the problem is also that philosophers like to conceive of morality as ahistorical and this results in 21st century people sitting on their nice couches or chairs behind computer screens judging individuals in an environment and historical circumstance that they just do not know and will never know. I guess this is a question of responsibility or blame which is different from morality. These issues are obviously closely related though. — BitconnectCarlos

If that argument flies no one can judge anything. However, it does not fly. If you are mugged in the subway the perpetrator will provided he is caught, be punished irrespective of his intractable historical circumstance. We punish him because we think mugging you is wrong. We recognise each other's pain and are capable of discerning suffering from pleasure. A historical situation makes behaviour understandable, maybe even excusable, but not right or justified.

And even beyond this - which morality are we to judge them by? Utilitarianism? Ethical Egoism? Whether the country is "being nice?" — BitconnectCarlos

Whatever moral theory you might like and presents a cogent argument for your position.

Could you expand on this a little? I know that I've gravitated towards a certain relativism here. I wasn't sure that I went that far but I might have so please let me know. — BitconnectCarlos

I do not think I need to expand much. When you say "well I have family in Israel and so that is why I embrace the position that Israel did not commit war crimes" you do that. You apparently hold the position that whether or not country X committed war crimes is dependent on whether the parties have relatives on country X.

There are posters who have waddled into that territory. In my mind there's no real difference between "constantly does evil" and "is evil." There are plenty of posters who have described Israel as being essentially a constantly evil force. Posters here have accused Israel of genocide constantly which is the epitome of evil in my book. Scroll back a little and you'll see plenty of these Israel-Nazi comparisons. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes of course there is a difference. Being evil is a characteristic of a person or entity and doing evil is judgment passed on an action. Now saying "Israel constantly does evil" is a bit of a silly statement, eveil to whom? Every moment of the day etc. But I do not think anyone said that. Secondly that was not what you said when quoting me, you were implying I overlooked Arab anti-semitism.

Some posters accuse Israel of genocide, and this could be true or not. There are internationally established definitions for when to call a certain action genocidal. It is a heinous war crime but it is something else than calling an entity essentially evil, because that is a metaphysical statement. I do think we are at the heart of the matter though. You feel personally offended an feel like you should defend yourself because you and your loved ones are being called evil by implication. However, I do not think that is what is at stake.

Alright, so lets let the "impartial" observers handle it then. And who would those be? Americans? Europeans? Which ones? Do Indians have a say? How about the Chinese? If Israel obeys some in the West and loosens security, who pays the price when blood is spilled? It's all very well and good to say that Israel shouldn't blockade Gaza, but who pays the price when heavy weaponry is imported from Iran? In any case I'm fine with the West stepping in to help with the process and make suggestions, but we'd like a say too. — BitconnectCarlos

Passing judgment on situation X is something different then solving situation X. In a philosophy forum the purpose is to discuss the ethical merits of a given situation or solution, not solving that situation. What I was trying to understand is what the beef was between you and the other posters and now I know, you do not enter into ethical debate at all. Perhaps you want to solve the situation, but than I would advise joining the Israeli or American diplomatic corps.

I have the self-awareness to admit that I'm partial; I just wish that that the West would realize that they approach the issue through their own biased cultural lenses as well. The Middle East geopolitically should not be treated like Europe. It is not analogous to the struggle between the British and the IRA. It is an extremely complicated issue with a very long history, intense hatreds, constantly shifting borders, and religious fundamentalism thrown in the mix. The stakes are extremely high and I don't have the luxury to take a step back from my own people. If your people were being attacked and under constant threat, I would not tell you to take a step back. — BitconnectCarlos

They do and that is why it is so important to find some common ground along the lines of ethical argumentation. I am not here actually to defend or attack Israel. I do recognize the existential threat to Israel, and of course the eternal victimization of Jewish people everywhere should also be factored in when passing judgment (however not on individual acts I daresay) but the question remains whether Israeli actions are right or wrong. That is the purpose of this thread. It is a matter of argumentation about right and wrong, but you seem bent on confusing identity with argument.

If your people were being attacked and under constant threat, I would not tell you to take a step back. — BitconnectCarlos

What you tell us to do is entirely uninteresting because you do not matter one bit. (neither do I). What might be relevant is whether you are right in your advice or not and if so why / why not. You seem to have some odd idea that the truth value of an argument is dependent on who utters it.

Israel's neighbors have used this type of language constantly since Israel's inception. It's luckily simmered down a little now and progress has been made, but historically this was a very big concern. The environment in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s - Israel's formative years - was different from today (but how much have things really changed? Who knows.) — BitconnectCarlos

You are misquoting me. I do not contest that Israels neighbours have such feelings. What I said was this:

"I think you misinterpret the position of your adversaries in this thread. I do not think anyone holds Israel to be 'an evil entity'. What they criticize are the actions and policies of Israel."
I said nothing about other countries. In fact I know anti-semitism among Arab nations runs high. I wonder why you actually misquote, if it is a mistake, it is silly but such things happen, if it is deliberate it is wrong and foul play to say the least.

Hey Tobias, if a gunman told to choose between saving your mother's life or the life of a complete stranger, would you pretend to be an impartial observer? How about if it was your son? Would you reason "oh well, two humans both have equal moral value etc. etc." At the end of the day you choose to save your mother/family (right??). There's nothing wrong with that. You have duties to your family. — BitconnectCarlos

No I would not, I can also make some ethical sense of familial duties, but I would not confuse ethics and affection. Let's say there is an ethical debate whether the king or my son deserves to be treated for corona first. I would obviously shout "my son my son"! But no one would debate with me because what I am talking about is affection. My opinion would actually carry no value in the debate. If such is the case for you in this conflict than we need to talk no further. Your capabilities to reason are compromised by affection, just as mine would be in the scenario you present to me.

In just the same way, the Israel-Palestine conflict isn't some abstract philosophical thought experiment to me; it's deeply personal and I have family living over there that I visit. My position isn't entirely due to my heritage and in the past I had a phase where I was anti-Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

I hope the best for your family. No it is no thought experiment it is an actual conflict. As a lawyer I would in such case advise you to withdraw and not pass judgment., because you cannot be impartial. The second part of your sentence is difficult to grasp. Your position isn't entirely due to your heritage, you were anti-Israel and now you are pro. But I'd think in a thread where a normative judgement is required one leaves their affectionate ties at the doorstep. Or one gives the caveat that the opinion presented is compromised by affective ties. I would say, lay out your pro-Israel arguments without recourse to your own personal commitments. Those arguments can be considered. For the other part, the writers will not pass judgment I would think because they realize your arguments are not ethical but personal and there is no point in arguing about one's personal commitments.

Of course we can talk about the ethics of the conflict and I'd agree that Israel has certainly fallen short some times. You'll find plenty of depravity on both sides. I don't think it's an evil entity however that deserves to be wiped out which is a common view in the Middle East — BitconnectCarlos

I think you misinterpret the position of your adversaries in this thread. I do not think anyone holds Israel to be 'an evil entity'. What they criticize are the actions and policies of Israel. Even a good entity may find itself on the wrong side of the (moral or international) law. That there is plenty of depravity on both sides I agree. the point is that superior weaponry brings superior responsibility. I rather have a depraved person opposite to me wielding a potato peeler then one wielding a smith & Wesson. I am allowed by law to use less force against the person with the potato peeler than I am against the one using a Smith & Wesson.

My one sided description of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I've never pretended to be a neutral bystander. I'm an American Jew with family in Israel and historical ties there.

If someone wants to claim neutrality that's their own delusion. What news sources do they watch? Who do they listen to? Who's story have they heard? Do they understand the region and its history and not just imposing their own cultural attitudes on Middle Eastern people? — BitconnectCarlos

I do not get something here. I know Israeli's who actually served in the Israeli military and they do not defend the Israeli bombing raids. Not that you cannot defend Israel, but this argument above is rather silly right? Isn't the point of ethical debate that based on argument you establish a certain position and not based on heritage? If that is not possible we can do away with rational discussion or law altogether. Any defendant may come up to me and say "yeah I committed this or that crime but you do not know what it is like to be brought up in this or that neighborhood go to this or that school".

I do not see what your heritage has to do with the position you take. You basically seem to hold the position that your heritage compels you to side with the members of your community against its enemies. You just appeal to heritage as a source of community in which only friends and enemies exist. Now, who else made such a claim?

I read contradictory statements about it. Last thing I saw was an inquiry for Volkskrant newspaper. Support for Israel is at an all time low, but at the same time there is little love for the Palestinians. My sentiment is that the young and well educated in increasing number support the Palestinian cause, but I think most people actually, the biggest voter base, does not really care and see Israel at least not as a threat.

Now that you have drawn my attention to this, I think you are quite on the mark. So the question arises, why should this be so? — Banno

My sociological explanation would go somewhere along this line: there are two mutually reinforcing trends with us since the 1960's. The first is democratization / emancipation the second is a culture of authenticity. These trends mutually reinforce each other.

Democratization has given many people the chance to speak out and raise their voice. Awareness rose that by and large our western consumer culture was based on all kind of hierarchies. Increased welfare, increased schooling and increased means of communications meant hitherto marginalized groups who suffered the most from these taken for granted hierarchies such as the working class, women and ethnic minorities gained more access to the discourse (sorry Banno ;) ) Rightly so, they occupied their spot in the market place of opinions. Their was a conservative backlash against it, it becomes visible especially now, but the traditional 'left' was sensitive to this development. It led to a questioning of the approach taken by the educated to the uneducated. Many are now sensitive to the idea that what they argue for is tinged with all kinds of prejudice and become hesitant. The idea emerges that what is being said is not 'fact', but opinion, at least the people bringing forth 'facts' shun from stating them as such.

Their authority dwindles for two reason. A. they were part of the same system of marginalisation therefore lost credibility. B. they feel uneasy donning the mantle of authority because they know they were. Democratization radicalized into identity politics. Everybody, not just the 'traditionally' marginalised groups, is a victim of one thing or other. (I was a little boy with glasses, not good!). That means everyone's sensitive spot must be taken into account leading to pussyfooting in debates.

The second reason is the culture of authenticity which I would relate to 1960's youth culture as well. Enlightnement liberated us from the church. The second world war, Vietnam and the environmental crisis liberated us from the idea that tradition and science make us moral. The source of morality can therefore not be found within a community but has to reside within oneself. The result is that everyone is a unique individual who is deserving of being loved and cherished and not hurt. Everyone reaches morality his or her own way, be it through community activism, boy scouting, LSD or free love. Since there is not one path to morality and 'knowledge' but many and since each individual is 'worth it', each individual feels free to claim his or her space, wherever and whenever. Why would the seat of congress not be occupied by a shaman wearing bull horns? He is at least, authentic and less corrupted than the satanists at the top.

The traditions reinforce each other. The top (the well educated holding higher social positions) become less self assured while the bottom (those that do not, and yes I am aware of the connotations of this metaphor, but I do not know how else to tell the story, no value judgments are intended) become more self assured. Established but often tacitly accepted rules of argumentation are called into question, or worse, not taught anymore. Equal worth becomes equated with equality of each opinion. The fallaciousness of that equation gets lost. So when someone is argumentatively butt kicked we do not accept it anymore. It is not a loss to a better opponent we have to accept, according to the rules of the game, but an unwarranted attack on our individual or group identity and self worth.

As for my own normative position on this (not that it matters but anyway) I hold the first trend to be a necessary correction of systemic inequality. The second trend though I think is pernicious especially coupled with the first one, because there is a tension between the two. The legitimation of self assertion it brings might well lead to new hierarchies and undermine democratization eventually. People flee into mysticism, others, feeling threatened start clamoring for a restoration of old privileges..

I am an oldie who floated back here from the days PF and sometimes I am more active than others because my job became more demanding.
If I have to compare how it is run now from the way PF was ru, I think the standards on PF were a little higher, but maybe I am wrong, that was after all 10 years ago and you remember only the posts that impressed you.

On the whole though I feel the place is still similar in that it has the occasional very knowledgeable thread the occasional off beat but very interesting idea an the usual groping around in the sandbox to find something to latch on to. There is nothing wrong with that, I came here way back in 2003 or 20004 because of a thread about nothingness and I still see it come up sometimes. I think the place is still a good way to sharpen one's argumentative skills and acquire some basic knowledge about various philosophical arguments. I still find it helpful that hardly anything catches me completely off guard because there has been one post or other about it in PF and one of the savants of the different traditions has commented on it.

What I do notice is that the tolerance towards sharp debate has gone down. It is a society wide trend I feel so nothing different here than in reel life. The ad homs and the snide remarks were all there back in the day as much as now, but the hurt or indignation against them was less. Attacks could really be vicioius but if there was some substance behind it, no worries. It was also recognized, sure debates can get mean, but principle of charity, in the end we do not mean bad. I think people's souls have grown more tender. It is a shame because I think such an attitude is beneficial. The acceptance that we all cross the line sometimes leads to a mutual recognition of fallibility. There were some posters who I had really mean altercations with but think back of with fondness. A debate is not a safe place. that recognition I think would be useful. that does not mean a license to disrespect, but disrespect with high level of substance should be tolerated and eaten. A debate is a battle and the scars of war is what makes us veterans. Of course, plain disrespect without substance is 'crime of war' and leads to dishonorable discharge.

Most people buy their land... When you find land belonging to no one, than you may occupy it. What you may not do is occupying someone else's land and take it as your own, aka conquest.

pointless...