Why be sorry?

A lot of people will agree with you, that idealism is a threat to democracy and ALWAYS leads to totalitarianism. They just have a different "Idealists" in their mind: Leftist socialists (Idealists), environmentalists (Idealists), Gay right activists (Idealists), Occupy Wall Street activists (Idealists), Democrats: Idealists, whatever, you name it. But for many people it is totally inconcievable and utterly incomprehensible to even think that the loony dangerous other side could ever reason anything or have in common any values. That's what I have learned for example following Philosophy Forums and other US forums.

I personally think that idealism isn't a threat to democracy. What is only dangerous when people resort to outright violence. And any political ideology that starts from the idea that violence is necessary, is a threat to democracy and will lead to totalitarianism. It's as simple as that. — ssu

I probably shouldn't, but it seems to offend a lot of people when I make this statement... or maybe they are uncomfortable or... really I have no idea, but the reactions are simply not very good.

Funny thing is, I really don't support any collective idealistic efforts. I find Leftist socialist just as totalitarian and the Right Wing conservatives. I don't really get the gay rights activists in that they highlight difference rather than embrace similarities. I find that equality of rights is not when one recognizes differences, but that differences are something that really don't matter; thus are for the most part background noise. Environmentalists have the tendency to make claims that mankind is solely responsible for the environment, which seem a bit of an arrogant perspective. We are part of the environment and not the 'masters of environment'. Occupy Wall Street was honestly short sighted and a list of complaints of which the protestors were themselve largely responsible for, but wished to play the blame game... oh, and they never really offered up any constructive solutions or viable alternatives. The mantra of 'what do we what: CHANGE, when do we want it: NOW, what should that change be exactly: WE HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL, who should make this change: SOMEONE ELSE'... reminded of the unsatisfaction of teens... as if simply being annoyed was a productive solution.

Anyway.... back to the real topic...

Perhaps I have simply seen too many movements that seemed to be 'harmless idealistic mantras' that have later proven to become totalitarian rules of a power driven megalomaniac sitting on the throne of that power. The potential destructive powers of idealism just puts me off that track. I cannot think of any notion of idealism that is immune to this potential of becoming a totalitarian rule that surrenders the mind by negating adaptation of notion and disallows (or tries to disallow) accumulation of new information/experience/knowledge.

I fail to see that such idealistic notions of status we might field match up with the relative nature of accumulation/adaptation of the universe; thus to stay consistant with the function of the universe I'm only part of I drop all my idealism as best I can... a sort of try again, fail again try to fail better approach. Perfection is a totalitarian myth and not worthy of consideration, as perfection cannot be defined without making an appeal to a special case or a personal preference. If it is defined in a manner that it must apply to call cases and be the standard of measure for all preferences, that is when the dangers must arise... some sooner than others.

Meow!

GREG

Don't know if this help...

... I find truth (or certainty) to be a 'process' rather than an 'actuality'. It is a dynamic process subject to adaptation of actuality of status via the accumulation of information/experience.

I find this to be more deductive and empirical than intuitive.

Meow!

GREG

Sorry, but this is my take:

ISIS: Idealists
Gun Lobby: Idealists
Christian Right: Idealists
Skin Heads: Idealists
GOP: Idealists

I'm sorry, but the greatest threat to democracy is idealism... as that always... ALWAYS leads to a totalitarianism via a surrender of the mind to a 'great ideal'.

best song to address this issue:



Meow!

GREG

Perhaps, but one thing I noticed is that the economic crash has a much more noticeable effect/affect in the USA than it has in Austria. (just came back to Austria after a 4 week visit in the USA)

Personally I find that one cannot really compare the two countries, as they have very different in governmental and economic models, but there is certainly a more obvious effect/affect of the crisis in the USA. Something tells me that it makes a bit more sense to address this issue of economic crisis in much tighter and specific context than any general worldwide notions.

Tiff mentioned that she hasn't felt the first one leave and I sort of haven't noticed the first one at all. Indeed I'm not wealthy or 'well-off', but I cannot say that this crisis has been more than a small bump for my life. My friends and neighbors (in Austria) have very much the same experience as I do. Indeed a country that is geographically small and a very small population is easier to govern, but maybe size matters? The bigger you are the harder you fall? Difficult to say...

Meow!

GREG

I'm allergic to most forms of entertainment. Odd one that. — Baden

Speaking of oddness...

(From my experience) Cyclists are usually allergic to intelligence.

Perhaps my participation in the Philosophy Forum is meant to be a treatment?

Meow!

GREG

Not that this is a major factor, but I've been away from the computer (for the most part) for the past 4 weeks. Now that I'm back, there could be a slight increase in the number of posts... but that says nothing about an increase in the quality of posts.

It might take a bit of time, as my jet lag is a bit harder this time.

Meow!

GREG

I wish a "MERRY SOMETHING" to all.

My favorite holiday song:



All the best!

Meow!

GREG

So the good is pleasure and the bad is pain. Therefore living well must have something to do with obtaining more pleasure while minimizing pain. — Marchesk

This doesn't account for physical training for sports or sports in general, people who enjoy S&M, as well as lots of necessary medical procedures where pain is indeed quite necessary. Pain as an important indicator of illness or disease cannot be ignored.

I find that this notion of "pleasure good - pain bad" is overly simplified and full of obvious errors.

A non-hedonistic approach to living well might be more complicated, at least in concept. I wanted to knowhow one was supposed to live well by knowing what is good, which of course depends on what it means to "live well" and "good". — Marchesk

Perhaps this is just me, but being told "how I'm supposed to live" is not really what I'd view all too often as 'good'.

Life means far less for me when it is measured out by someone else's time or standards of measure.

This all reminds me of those who deal with happiness in the manner in which we are attempting to deal with 'what is good':



I suppose I'd continue this thought to include:

You will never know good if you continue to for what goodness consists of...

... good is not a static thing or a static quality. It is a value notion subject to a relative process.

Attempts to define for all cases what 'the good' is or what 'living well' consists of amounts to chasing a rainbow. Why not enjoy looking at the rainbow, as one will never catch it?

Just a passing thought... take it with a grain of salt. ;)

Meow!

GREG



Meow!

GREG

As I view it, the main problem here is consensus of definitions.

What does it mean to pursue pleasure?

What pain is to be considered pain to be avoided?

What does it mean to live well?

I find all of these to be very vague notions and generalizations; thus next to impossible to find any consensus, so making a sort of all inclusive claim of what it pleasure, pain or living well is a futile effort.

In addition to this, making such all inclusive claims of value are at the same time all exclusive claims, as when something is included rather than something else, that something else is what is excluded.

I find the statement "to know what good is, and to live it well" is very shortsighted. What is good in one moment is not always what is good in the next moment or even in the next similar moment. Also, is "to live it well" a state of being (a status) or is it perhaps a dynamic process of constant change and adaptations? I feel it is the latter; thus making any fixed points of status (including what one believe one knows as what is good) when it comes to notions of value are shortsighted, as it would have to 'disinclude' the accumulation of any information/experiences that might cause a change in what one deems (attributes/asserts) to be what they 'know' as good.

Such a quote seems to be rather a hasty comment and a very vague notion with far too many holes holding it together. It's a (mis)fortune cookie that I'll pass on.

Meow!

GREG

An interesting idea, MoS, but I'm not sure if a metaphor is sufficient to answer the problem here.

How did these factors get set into motion, and what set them into motion? — darthbarracuda

As far as I can tell, at the moment, is that we hit a wall at the singularity (the big bang). What happened prior to this is not really something we can address like anything else post singularity.

The reasoning for this is simple...

... we need a language we do not have.

huh?

I get that a lot.

Language is all based in a context. There is no such thing as a non-contextual language. The base context of language is spatial and temporal, as out context of experiences where language has its foundation is space and time.

How can we use a language seated in space and time to speak of ????? that is prior to space and time?

Kwalish Kid once said something to the effect that the singularity is not a triumph of science, but rather a 'failure' or better said a short coming of science in that we can only have some speculation with a degree of logical consistency regarding this issue, but until we have an ability to speak of space before space and time before time in a coherent manner, science will and must fail to provide an answer... as this might well indeed prove to be unanswerable.

btw... Metaphysics does not answer this, it simply dodges it with magic and magical thinking; thus adds nothing to the debate.

Yes. Why is it that eyes let us see and not let us fly? Why does a volcano erupt and not turn into a field of daffodils? — darthbarracuda

I cannot improve on this. At some point or another we have some things that whether we like them to be so or not simply are as they are. I can only make an attempt to bring in happenings just shortly after the big bang to trace a trail of determining factors, but honestly I find that such a question is simply an appeal to magical thinking. It's not dogma as much as all indicators of determining factors point to this being the logical outcome.

Indeed it is good to place the given into question, but at some points one might wish to look at the alternative... in the case the field of flowers options and simply figure why this is just silly magical thinking.

Do you mean something along the lines of that, since we are the products of evolution, we are limited in our cognitive abilities? — darthbarracuda

Well, I'd say that might be a small part of it, but why not see the reason not as THE reason, but as one of many reasons?

You'll see if you drop the idealistic THE answer for things and address answers for thing as many parts it is far easier to get a grasp upon.

Back to the point...

... we have limited lifespans, limited fields of perspective, limited understanding of technologies, limited understanding of processes, limited amounts of information (in that we only have a very small sample of the determining factors leading up to an event/actions being as it is)... in short, this is why science is involved in investigations and metaphysics is involved in certainties. One is in the process of gaining knowledge and other other is in the process of excluding this gain and ignoring it as to preserve faith in a central meaning or a central purpose. This is the main problem of idealistic thinking. It claims to be 'open minded' or having a greater perspective, where all it has done is rather dogmatically insisted upon things in the universe play along with metaphysical preferences. I'm trying my best to be nice about this... in short metaphysical questions are not really questions at all, but rather claims of (religious) faith founded upon the denial of what is observed. Metaphysics cannot take criticism and when something does not line up with its preconceived notions it is either brushed off or spun in such a manner as to make it magical. It's basically idealistic bullshit institutionalized. (and that is me being nice)

I agree that much of metaphysics seems very anthropocentric.

But to be dissatisfied with an answer is the spark of curiosity that leads to great discoveries. If we had all just given up because we didn't think it was possible to get to the moon, we wouldn't have gotten to the moon. — darthbarracuda

But to be dissatisfied with an answer is the spark to imprison many a fellow who has a different notions to what one WANTS to be the case.

Science has to fight tooth and nail against such agents of metaphysics, superstitions and magical preferences/desires.

Curiosity seems to stem directly from our desire to know how we fit into this world. — darthbarracuda

It can also mean how we wish to fashion the world into our own image.

Here's a funny bit for you:

IT DOESN'T. HERE ME LOUD AND CLEAR, LET'S KEEP THIS THREAD FREE OF IT.

What I mean to say is that there are plenty of other threads dedicated specifically to pessimism, and I wanted to make sure nobody jumped on board to debate the nature of a pessimistic Will when this isn't really the focus of this topic. — darthbarracuda

I only have one addition to this...

... I think the pessimism only occurs when the results of science simply don't match up with the preferences of the individual. This disappointment leads to pessimism, but actually it's nothing more than a school bully being called on his bluff. I feel these people need to simply grow up and realize that the universe is simply not all about them and get over their narcissism that leads to this pessimism.

I enjoy my limitations and uncertain understandings. They seem to match up well with science and the process of adaptation that adds to scientific understanding. The universe doesn't care about me or what I think or what I believe. The universe simply doesn't care because it cannot care. It doesn't have that petty ability of valuations of things and events. In short, it is all there. Problem is I cannot possibly access it all of perceive it all; thus like science... I don't know everything which is why I do not stop. Metaphysics and idealism do make claims of knowing everything... and if they don't then the answers they field with certainty are all magical claims or selling us an invisible product that has really done nothing to answer anything... perhaps this is them simply being in love with the sound of their own voices inside their heads, who really knows, but this is why (I find that) they are so stagnated and pessimistic... but then state that they are spiritual.

Whatever...

... I don't do this often, as Dawkins is rather unpopular, but this bit is not bad at all. He rather hits the nail on the head:



From 7:16 to 7:52 is the best thing Dawkins has ever stated. That's my point here as well.

Meow!

GREG

To begin, one of the most fundamental question that has bothered me since I can remember is: why is the world the way it is? — darthbarracuda

Well... I'd say because of the predicating factors that have lead to to things being as they currently are and since these factors have been set into 'motion' they cannot be 'unset' into motion. Much like you cannot really 'unring' a bell once it has been rung.

Why do stars expand and contract due to pressure changes? They just do.
Isaac Newton postulated that things fall to the ground due to gravity. But why does an apple fall to the ground due to gravity? It just does. — darthbarracuda

That sounds like an answer. It might be satisfactory for what you wish it to be, but as far as I can tell there is no law within science that states we have to be happy with the answers we find.

Anyway...

We can "explain" why a volcano erupts, but not why a volcano erupts necessarily. — darthbarracuda

Do you mean 'why' as in having a purpose for doing what it does... as if there is a universal sort of must be a necessity to it all?

The cliche saying is that science answers the "how", philosophy answers the "why". Not only do I find this too simplistic, but it may be blatantly wrong. The "how" can just as easily be the "why", as long as we have a basic axiom to work on. However, this "why" is not a metaphysical "why", but a descriptive "why". These descriptive "why"s beg a regress ad infinitum, which is impossible. There must be a metaphysical "why". — darthbarracuda

I'm not following you here.

Why should a regress that is infinite be impossible?

Why should determining factors have a limit placed upon them other than the limits of our personal ability to deal with them?

Why hold determining factor hostage to our personal limitations of perspective and understanding?

The only reason for a metaphysical "why" as far as I can tell is when we are personally dissatisfied with our place in the universe and wish to make the universe dance according to our wishes. The only reason for a metaphysical "why" being at all necessary is when our ego take the high ground and we wish to think the universe is here and is as it is simply because of ourselves. That's why I tend to call it MEphysics. It is nothing more that an egotistical delusion of megalomania.

Anyway...

Obviously one answer to this question is that god made the world the way it is. I don't find this, currently, to be that appealing, so why does a volcano erupt instead of turning into a daffodil? — darthbarracuda

God is not an answer in any why shape or form. To simply make an appeal to an 'unknowable and invisible product' being sold as the causal agent of anything is not an answer. It changes nothing in terms of understanding, but rather makes a tactical dodging of the issue.

I can provide a scientific reason as to why a volcano erupts rather than become a field of flowers, but it will not include intention, purpose or agenda, as these are conjectures, attributions and assertions of value... these are relative to personal preferences and group social preferences, but not the results of nature phenomenon. We are the agents of value conjecture, attribution and assertion and not the volcano; thus the question of intention, purpose or agenda natural phenomenon has is a moot point... often a red herring to grant credence/justification to deities and other proxys of the human ego.

Now, before I continue, make no mistake, I do not want to discuss pessimism in this thread. There are a myriad of others out there for that. — darthbarracuda

Why should pessimism enter the fray at all?

Such value notions as pessimism make no difference to the situation. Honestly, neither science or nature cares what we think or feel about things. For that matter, nature and science does not care because it cannot care... we do that, so maybe we should avoid making science or nature into anthropomorphic entities.... capable of fielding value conjectures, attributions and assertions, as well as holding some sort of intention, purpose or agenda?

Regardless of your opinions on the metaphysical Will, I think his approach to this issue from the appearance vs essence is very interesting. — darthbarracuda

I find delusion to just as interesting. Same goes for love, but we cannot measure degrees of delusion with color charts or measure depth of feeling with a yardstick.

How do we measure "will"?

Again, these are notions of value we place into motion via conjecture, attribution and assertion.

why the universe is the way it is — darthbarracuda

Because of all of the predicating factors leading up to them being as it is at the current point in time and space. (works for me)

the nature of scientific explanations, and whether or not these explanations are suitable/adequate to answering the first question. — darthbarracuda

I find them adequate, but I try not to make the universe dance to my personal prefered song list. and avoid the selfish enterprise of MEphysics all together. ;)

Meow!

GREG

I'm not too sure what to make of this, but I feel that the police in my (former) hometown did a fairly good job. Indeed he didn't have a machete, but this did occur in a housing development where for the most part younger Families with children tend to live.



This is about 3 km away from where I'm going to in about 72 hours time.

Funny thing is I know most of the people in the video. They all gain a bit of weight since I last saw them 22 years ago. I suppose the good life has a tendency to stick to the bones after a time. :D

Anyway...

... maybe there is a bit of hope for the USA and the police.

Meow!

GREG

I should also mention that you are not really the 'one' I had in mind when I said "one can speak of".

I suppose I needed to add a bit of context there as well. :D

Indeed a triangle is far easier to understand than a person. The standard of measure for a triangle is far easier to gain a consensus for than the standard of measure for a person. I suppose the gist of my rant is that just because one has a standard of measure a good number of notions, it does not mean that one can generalize about notions equally. Vastness, complexity, number of variables and other value factors making up a standard of measure are not equal...

... so the generalized overall concept of Essentialism collapses upon the weight of the relative variables making up the standard of measure.

Personally I consider Essentialism to be a subset of Contextualism which is either a (hasty) generalization for the sake of convenience/simplification or a categorical error in that it is idealism as a subset of relativism.

Meow!

GREG

Essentialism only works when we know exactly what it means to be X – e.g. where X is a triangle or a bachelor. But when it comes to something like humanity or personhood then we have to abandon essentialism and accept instead a family resemblance among the things which we – as a matter of convention – designate as "human" or "person". — Michael

Sounds a lot like my beef when it comes to any absolute idealistic notion.

Indeed, idealistic notions only work when we know exactly what the standard of measure is that is the means with which we (can) field such absolute idealistic categorical notions.

I can only understand this sort of thinking when it is placed into a sort of context; that is a Contextualism where Essentialism is a 'subset'. The problem is when the context changes, so can the attributes within the standard of measure viewed as the essence for the essentialism to work in the first place. (It kind of screws up the absolute aspect of essentialism, as it is a subset of a relativistic perspective... opps! Did I just say that?)

I'll leave it at that for now, as I'm not all together too sure where this thread should journey. Me being a bit of a relativist and sort of void of absolutes kind makes such a debate moot. This probably has more to do with my understanding of what a thing would be.

Anyway...

... the issue of lumping things such a triangles with personhood is well... seems like a massive equivocation. What one can speak of regarding one notions is not necessarily what one can speak of regarding another notion, but indeed there are those who will try and possibly get away with it depending upon who is listening. ;)

Meow!

GREG

@darthbarracuda

... if you like Foals, maybe this is of interest too:



playlist ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fca-XzzxpAY&list=RDEMeQ5m-mEX1dnIaFYSLtWA6A&index=1 ) start with this one :



... ahh Math Rock! (Y)


Meow!

GREG

What could possibly go wrong with a brilliant plan like this? — Landru Guide Us

It is a 'Homeopathy Solution' to the problem:

Unlike a vaccination that introduces a diminished (micro) form of the virus itself into the system as to evoke the immune system to better fight off the virus, it is the (confused) notion that what causes similar symptoms of the virus can cure those symptoms of the virus, but completely ignores the root cause of the virus.

The only thing that works in the Homeopathy is that it is a treatment of the patient rather than a treatment of the disease. It is a personal form of treatment; thus the placebo effect of feeling that one is becoming better is simply the result of the feeling that one is being helped.

I don't intend this to be a 'strawman', but rather a direct one to one illustration of this argument, just in medicine rather than in public safety.

The concept used by this sort of argument is one of the (mis)conception of if we introduce more of the symptoms (guns) into a society with the problem of gun violence that the introduction of more guns will cure the symptom of more guns being used for gun violence, yet completely ignores of the actual issue of gun violence in it's root cause; that being the irresponsibility of people.

Is the cure for irresponsibility to introduce even more potentially dangerous responsibility for the irresponsible?

I much prefer the vaccination model of allowing the trained and trusted professionals the duty of doing the jobs they have been trained for and not having a bunch of untrained, trigger happy fearful people taking the law into their own hands...

... then again, the professionals have not been all that professional as of late, but here's a better question... why?

Do they have the ability to do the job they are there to do or have there been so many restrictions placed upon their ability to do their jobs by those who they themselves have never one been trained or had to do those jobs?

SPIN SPIN SPIN...

How many times do we get to hear about these professionals getting it correct in the day and age of 'trial by media'?

(reminds me... I leave for the United States of Whatever in a just 5 days. I love the commercials. If I didn't know better, I'd say the USA is simply made of fat type-2 diabetic balding men who cannot get an erection who are looking for the best means to make a quick buck in a 100% risk free investment.)

I need a (sequitur) non-sequitur song about now:



... back to the rant:

Kind of reminds me of education, where parent who have a couple of kids somehow think they are far better to understand how to educate young people than teachers who have had years of education and preparation to do the specific task, but by virtue of parents having functions secondary sexual organs and the ability to press out a kid or two... well that ability to produce such a 'miracle' (a very common thing and honestly a very piss poor miracle as far as miracles go) they know it all much much better than the professionals... not realizing that their attachment in terms of an empirical study would be considered a bias.

Sorry...

... go 'off-topic'. Well... not really, but for the sake of the debate, let's say it was off topic.;)

Homeopathy is to the gun lobby argument, as conventional medicine is to gun control argument.

more humor:



Meow!

GREG

Looks like America is winning again! Thanks NRA for keeping the US exceptional! — Landru Guide Us

All I can do is laugh at it all...

... if not, I'd probably just cry.

Funny thing is when I went to high school back in the late 70's early 80's guys who drove to school in their pickup trucks all had gun racks in their trucks. Indeed there were guns on most all of those gun racks and also there when they were parked in the school parking lot.

We had issue, fights, cliques, outsiders and typical high school angst frustrations, yet no one ever considered using a gun to resolve a problem. Never ever...

What changed?

Granted these guns were all for hunting and were not AK 47's or 'gangsta hardware', but they were guns nonetheless.

What changed in the people?

Anyway...

... back to laughing:



... let's promote spoon control to fight fat!



speaking of fat people...



I like the idea of making fat kids run until their gym shorts fit them. They won't have time to shoot each other or get indoctrinated via some sort of internet idealist bullshit con-artists claiming some sort of religious revolution. This fixes 3 problems all at once! :D

Meow!

GREG

On a related note, the U.S. urgently needs a Mass Shooting Channel to make some room for real news on cable. Oh, and they could leave the Republican debate on the mass shooting channel. — photographer

"...urgently needs"? :s

Don't they already have that in FOX News (aka the world's largest terrorist network :-$ )?

Meow!

GREG

Less Brains, More Bodies...

Why was this the first thing to pop into my head?



... I'm a bad putty cat! :D

Meow!

GREG

WOW!

What a horrible topic!

(Time for a rant... as if that would be something new in this case...)

Can we put it into 'Philosophy of Religion'?

--------------------------------------

Anyway...

... I always thought that 'gun control' in the USA meant using two hands to fire a gun rather than just one.

--------------------------------------

For what it's worth:

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

Might I add that no guns where harmed in these shooting.

More fun to spin how you like... there's a stat for everyone, get 'um while they're hot!



---------------------------------------

Can we simply agreed that the human species is simply an irresponsible one?

If we are irresponsible with our toys, which works better...

...more toys or less toys or no toys or simply lessen the number of irresponsible people?

If the latter, then how?

Should we simply shoot them? :D

---------------------------------------

Now if we can only debate the merits of a religious order who advocates circumcision using an AK 47 vs. another religious order who advocates the use of a Glock 9 to perform the task instead? :s

---------------------------------------

Anyway...

... crap topics like this take the headlines when people seem to be under the misconception that there are idealistic absolute answers to questions which indeed are quite relative in nature.

Perhaps less of the ranting religious devotion to one side or the other, as if there are only two sides to the issue and look at who is holding the guns and especially WHY they are holding them.

As far as I can tell, the vast majority of the reasons to hold a gun are only there because we are allowed to hold a gun and simply don't trust the others who have been granted this liberty... so what we have is a religion founded upon fear and distrust... a very typical psychological religious disorder, so to be honest... they are really shitty reasons at best, so I suppose shitty reasons will the the best we can do in a debate.

Again...

... can we have this topic moved to 'Fetisch of Religion'?

Meow!

GREG

Don't know about this. I find I learn a lot more by posting than by reading alone, or posting requires more reading and so on. — Baden

Agreed!

Reading alone is how many a manifesto has it's beginning... leading to subsequent explosions. :-O

Meow!

GREG

I'd like a rabbitduck version of that. :) — jorndoe

Not quite a 'venn diagram', but well...

Cool. The Doctor has it all. (Speaking of.. We're still puzzled about the latest episode hereabouts.) — jorndoe

Really... exactly what wibbly wobbly timey wimey aspect wasn't unpuzzled?



Meow!

GREG

I quite like Venn Diagrams...

... so of my favorites:

















Meow!

GREG

Well, I don't take orders from you, and wasn't actually planning on posting anymore in this thread, but if you keep replying to me, then you are just exacerbating the very thing you accuse me of having done. — Thorongil

It's not an order. It's just an appeal to show a sign of respect to the OP.

Ask Tiff if this is what she had in mind when starting this thread or not. I'm not exacerbating this, as much as I'm trying to make an appeal to get things back to the original intention of the OP. Hells bells, how the fuck should I know what your intentions are unless you state them? No need to be all huffy and defensive.

I'd be happy to see some vegetarian or vegan suggestions of stuff to make and try out.

anyway...

Meow!

GREG

What an absurd false dichotomy. Perhaps you are trolling, though. — Thorongil

Just to be fair...

... I sort of imagine Tiff started this thread to more or less share recipes and discuss interesting dishes to eat. I have great doubts that it was meant to be a soapbox platform for an ethics rant-o-thon over the virtues or vices of Vegetarian vs. Vegan vs. Meat Eaters .

Perhaps you can accuse one of trolling, but indeed there could be the accusation of hijacking or derailing this thread on your account.

How about you discussing some good vegetarian dishes and share some good vegetarian recipes rather than claim a 'moral high ground' and make simply smug dismissals?

In respect to Tiff...

... cut it.

Meow!

GREG

That sounds disgusting. — Thorongil

I can live with that, as it means more for me. :D

Meow!

GREG

I write the former and I sit on the latter. — Michael

It makes me wonder if there are others who suppose it might be the there way around?

Meow!

GREG

Shh. We don't have to have that argument here. I just couldn't resist that quip, as a vegetarian myself. — Thorongil

GOOD!!!

Especially since I just made about 2 kgs of Beef Jerky. (not all too common in Austria)

I'm quite happy with the Merlot/Black Pepper and the Garlic/Teriyaki Jerky.

Meow!

GREG

Logical positivism, originating in the Vienna Circle, is pretty much dead — darthbarracuda

Dead or perhaps evolved into something else?

Logical Positivism was essential to the development of early Analytic Philosophy, with which it effectively merged.http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_logical_positivism.html

Just because the Verification Principle is self-refuting does not mean metaphysics is saved — darthbarracuda

Not really.

Just because one attempt failed does not mean all attempts have failed, as well as all future attempts will fail.

Is it a metaphysical doctrine?

It looks more like a fairly practical (physical) statement about the limits of good sense. — unenlightened

I view it that way too.

I find this to be a bit of a better depiction of logical positivism.

Logical Positivism was also committed to the idea of "Unified Science", or the development of a common language in which all scientific propositions can be expressed, usually by means of various "reductions" or "explications" of the terms of one science to the terms of another (putatively more fundamental) one.

The main tenets of the doctrine include:

The opposition to all Metaphysics, especially ontology (the study of reality and the nature of being), not as necessarily wrong but as having no meaning.

The rejection of synthetic a priori propositions (e.g. "All bachelors are happy"), which are, by their nature, unverifiable (as opposed to analytic statements, which are true simply by virtue of their meanings e.g. "All bachelors are unmarried").

A criterion of meaning based on Ludwig Wittgenstein's early work, (essentially, that the meaning of a word is its use in the language, and that thoughts, and the language used to express those thoughts, are pictures or representations of how things are in the world).

The idea that all knowledge should be codifiable in a single standard language of science, and the associated ongoing project of "rational reconstruction", in which ordinary-language concepts were gradually to be replaced by more precise equivalents in that standard language. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_logical_positivism.html


Meow!

GREG

Any arguments and reasons that motivated you to move here rather than stay at PF that might dissuade me? — Question

Why would I want to dissuade you from posting in PF?

Why should my reasons not to post anymore in PF be of any reason why you should not post there anymore?

I find my reasons to no longer participate in PF are quite good ones, but why should they be great ones for you too?

"Doowutchyalike"



One of the best lyrics of all time!
"Homegirls, for once, forget you got class,
See a guy you like: just grab I'm in the biscuits!"

Meow!

GREG

I was sitting, on the roof of my house
With a shotgun
And a six pack of beers, six pack of beers, six pack of beers.
The newscaster says, "The enemy is among us"
As bombs explode on the 30 bus,
Kill your middle class indecision,
Now is not the time for liberal thought,

So I go hunting for witches
I go hunting for witches
Heads are going to roll
I go hunting for..

... I was an ordinary man with ordinary desires
I watched TV, it informed me
I was an ordinary man with ordinary desires
There must be accountability
Disparate and misinformed
Fear will keep us all in place

So I go hunting for witches
I go hunting for witches
Heads are going to roll


Meow!

GREG

No great loss. — Baden

(Y)

Ditto!

Meow!

GREG

For instance, was Austria at it's antisemitic worst merely a composite of its population, OR was the State of Austria different than a composite of Austrians? — Bitter Crank

I would like to say that the Austrian people were different than the state, but there was a large section of the population at that time who were indeed Anti-Semitic. Probably not the majority of Austrians, but there were certainly more of them around at that time.

Then again...

... one thing to keep in mind was that Austria was occupied and at that time was part of Nazi Germany and not really under sovereign rule.

There are among the 320 million people, numerous and quite different demographics that don't overlap and don't have the same values and interests. — Bitter Crank

My question here would be does having different values or interests from someone else equate having a disregard for values and interests of someone else?

I don't think so.

American governments are elected by the people. Including those who chose not to vote.

Perhaps having a disregard in participating in this election process by the people to serve the people reflects something manifest in the USA and about elected officials having disregard for representing the people that have elected them to serve the people; thus the government simply reflects the common disregard of the common man?

Meow!

GREG

I don't know why anyone would send Syrians to Alabama anyway — Bitter Crank

They might not even notice they left Syria, except for the accents and there being more guns than usual.

Meow!

GREG

I just wanted to say that I invited a friend from Istanbul, Turkey and she is a sweetheart living in a very unsteady part of the world — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Funny... I leave from Vienna, Austria in 4 weeks to go to the USA via Washington DC, what I would describe as a 'very unsteady part of the world'. :-O

Meow!

GREG

Do you feel like your State is your friend, or is it an interest-pursuing machine which might callously disregard your interests? — Bitter Crank

I feel for the most part the Social Democratic Republic of Austria's government makes an effort to work in the public's interest.

Indeed there are things that are than just 'appear to be self-serving' done by politicians, they are self-serving, but this negative does not negate the positives.

I do agree with unenlightened:

I don't see the state as being fundamentally other than the people that compose it. — unenlightened

At the moment we have a large section of the population living and acting under fear. Not just as of this past weekend, but for the better part of the past 12 years. In spite of this fear, the government has managed not to succumb to all of these fears and has been able to maintain the principles of a social democratic process.

It is far from perfect, but some progress is being made.

I'm not really upset with Austria and how is presents itself worldwide. Indeed there are (from my perspective) self-serving and embarrassing moments...

... but I'm in a very fortunate position. I am not Austrian. I have lived here for more than 2 decades, but I can use that 'escape' if needed.

I am American, but since I have not lived there for more than 2 decades, I do use that 'escape' all of the time. Considering how America has developed over the past 20+ years... it's nice to be able to distance myself from that mess and do so in a legitimate manner.

As far as the USA is concerned... 'I'm Austrian'..

... In the same manner that Bill Maher is 'Swiss'.



Meow!

GREG

Perhaps the entire approach to the problem has a fundamental flaw?

Why is there even the mention of invading another country or nation?

Why is that even consider a viable option? :s

As far as I can tell these leader of the caliphate do not represent a particular country or nation. They represent countries and nations that are as mythical as Narnia or Pandora. These lands exist in their (delusional and disturbed) minds.

The blame game is getting (fucking) old.

Who gave them support? :-d

EVERYONE!

Indeed if we trace back the supports to their cause for caliphate, nearly every country and nation (East, West, North or South) will probably have some sort of hand in this support (whether intentional or unintentional), so maybe it is time to stop play the blame game and go after the individuals.

------------------------------------------------------------

Here's another question that maybe the (generalized) West needs to ask itself:

Why are youth from the (generalized) West even considering joining such an organization as ISIS or whatever the next new kid of terror on the block happens to be in vogue?

What is missing or present in this current (generalized) Western society that causes this to even be a consideration?

I mean specifics and not just a bunch of generalized rhetoric of boo these (vague) values and boo these handful of leaders.

-------------------------------------------------------------

My personal perspective is that the attack on ISIS that will be the most effective and might do the most to dull their progress will be the attack by Anonymous. Their attack is aimed at the individuals and not countries that have 'supported' them (which would be every country) or nations where they come from or have been last seem to have inhabited.

In terms of values and notions of truth...

... I also view this circumstance to be the best evidence to show how idealism and literalism are flawed and cruel systems in both the 'east' and the 'west'...

... but as this debate is not about philosophy, but rather use and abuse of politics and religion as pimped by self-justified megalomaniacs and followed by his/her cult via personality**, be they in Syrian or the USA... I suppose were back to the 'petty penis measuring contest'. Introducing any philosophy would be an act of castration.

Maybe they should make this a new world anti-national anthem?



"Closer To Fine"


I'm trying to tell you something about my life
Maybe give me insight between black and white
The best thing you've ever done for me
Is to help me take my life less seriously, it's only life after all
Well darkness has a hunger that's insatiable
And lightness has a call that's hard to hear
I wrap my fear around me like a blanket
I sailed my ship of safety till I sank it, I'm crawling on your shore.

I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine.

I went to see the doctor of philosophy
With a poster of Rasputin and a beard down to his knee
He never did marry or see a B-grade movie
He graded my performance, he said he could see through me
I spent four years prostrate to the higher mind, got my paper
And I was free.

I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine.

I stopped by the bar at 3 a.m.
To seek solace in a bottle or possibly a friend
I woke up with a headache like my head against a board
Twice as cloudy as I'd been the night before
I went in seeking clarity.

I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine.

I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine.

We go to the bible, we go through the workout
We read up on revival and we stand up for the lookout
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in a crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine
The closer I am to fine
The closer I am to fine

--------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway...

... this is what I except to have to deal with in 4 weeks when I fly to Washington DC leaving my rather safe and secure home with my Islamic neighbors who are just as shocked over the circumstances and they themselves have a new fear to deal with... the witch hunts... I just have to turn on the TV and I can smell the smoke of stupidity mixed with the sweat of fear:



"Hunting For Witches"


I was sitting, on the roof of my house
With a shotgun
And a six pack of beers, six pack of beers, six pack of beers.
The newscaster says, "The enemy is among us"
As bombs explode on the 30 bus,
Kill your middle class indecision,
Now is not the time for liberal thought,

So I go hunting for witches
I go hunting for witches
Heads are going to roll
I go hunting for..

90's,Optimistic as a teen.
Now its terror
airplanes crash into towers, into towers, into towers.

The Daily Mail says the enemies among us,
Taking our women and taking our jobs,
All reasonable thought is being drowned out by the non-stop baying, baying, baying for blood

So I go hunting for witches
I go hunting for witches
Heads are going to roll..
I was an ordinary man with ordinary desires
I watched TV, it informed me
I was an ordinary man with ordinary desires
There must be accountability
Disparate and misinformed
Fear will keep us all in place

So I go hunting for witches
I go hunting for witches
Heads are going to roll

I was an ordinary man with ordinary desires
I watched TV, it informed me
I was an ordinary man with ordinary desires
There must be accountability
Disparate and misinformed
Fear will keep us all in place


Maybe it's me, but I consider FOX NEWS to be a radical terrorist organization as much as ISIS.

Then again, I'm not really from anywhere anymore, but I do like this Austrian Laws:

Article 283

The Austrian Criminal Code contains provisions aimed at combating racism and intolerance.
These include Section 283 (para. 1) - which punishes incitement to hostile action against a
church or religious community established in the country or a group determined by their
affiliation to such a church or religious community, or to a race, nation, ethnic group or state -
and Section 283 (para. 2) - which punishes publicly agitating against such a group or insulting or
disparaging it in a manner violating human dignity.5

With effect from 1 January 2012, the scope of the offence of hate speech defined under section
283 of the Criminal Code had been expanded. Section 283, paragraph 1, characterized advocacy
of or incitement to violence against a church, a religious society or any group defined in terms of
race, skin color, language, religion, belief, nationality, descent, national or ethnic origin, sex,
disability, age or sexual orientation, or against a member of any such group, where the
incitement was expressly motivated by membership of the group, as an offence punishable with
imprisonment for up to 2 years.6


Meow!

GREG

** "Cult Of Personality"


Look in my eyes, what do you see?
The cult of personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
I've been everything you want to be

I'm the cult of personality
Like Mussolini and Kennedy
I'm the cult of personality
The cult of personality
The cult of personality

Neon lights, Nobel Prize
When a mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You won't have to follow me
Only you can set me free

I sell the things you need to be
I'm the smiling face on your TV
I'm the cult of personality
I exploit you, still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three

I'm the cult of personality
Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi
I'm the cult of personality
The cult of personality
The cult of personality

Neon lights, a Nobel Prize
When a leader speaks, that leader dies
You won't have to follow me
Only you can set you free

You gave me fortune
You gave me fame
You gave me power in your God's name
I'm every person you need to be
I'm the cult of personality




Sorry all the 'POP' references, but this problem is a part of the culture... the POP culture.

Maybe that is the better location to seek out a solution and than impersonal and abstruse ranting of political and religious rhetoric? ;)

Perhaps she has a career in politics ahead of her?

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fdiepresse.com%2Fhome%2Fpolitik%2Finnenpolitik%2F1599395%2FOVP-attackiert-fliegendes-Spaghettimonster




Meow!

GREG

btw: recent developments...

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?ref=IE8Activity&from=&to=en&a=http%3a%2f%2freligion.orf.at%2fstories%2f2739168%2f

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Freligion.orf.at%2Fstories%2F2695393%2F

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Freligion.orf.at%2Fstories%2F2624461%2F

Muhammad cartoon drawing contest in Texas — ArguingWAristotleTiff

This leaves me speechless...

... the SIOA (AFDI) is a horrible organization. Such hate groups should be illegal.

I really cannot comment on this any further.

Meow!

GREG

I respectfully disagree. The golden time of intervention of such a hostage taking is immediate and with force. I think of what would happen at a concert venue here in the USA, even where firearms are forbidden, those who are security at the venue would be armed and able to respond. In that massive of a crisis, the first to react would be the ones with the best window of opportunity to neutralize the threat. It is a of a lot hell faster than assembling a task force to figure out a way in. Grant you, the USA does the same in assembling task forces where hostages are involved but venues are required to provide security equal to the implied threat.

I will not deny that what you say is a risk but not enough to discourage a citizen to take personal responsibility for their safety and those around them. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Now you shifted the context Tiff.

There is a difference between qualified security being armed and non-qualified audience members being armed.

The main point is, you simply do not attend a concert and expect an attack by terrorists out of the blue. This sort of attack can happen anywhere at any time, so is the solution to have everyone out of fear armed with firearms in the event that something might happen? To live as such is to gives into the desire to create a life of fear allowing the terrorists to win.

I'm not too sold that the exclusive means of taking personal responsibility is to be armed with firearms. It seems the probability that there are far more times where a terrorist attack will not happen where such carrying around of weapons that can kill would create other far more common bad things.

Meow!

GREG