If the whole of knowledge is self-knowledge, what about their philosophy?

Would they allow some realm of the other which humans may correctly perceive to account for the correctnes of their outlook?

Thanks for posting that. Cool.

Prior to this though, when the throw is in the future, there are six possibilities. — Metaphysician Undercover

There are definitely six logical possibilities. When we say "The 2 has a 1/6 chance of appearing face up.", we're talking about logical possibility.

The other kind of probability would make an assessment of some number of die throws... say 1000. Note that this kind of probability has no bearing on a unique event. The number in the denominator would be 1, so whatever the outcome turns out to be, it had a 100% chance of happening. This is all just a side effect of the fact that every event has only 1 outcome.

quantum mechanics (or general relativity) have little relevance to it. — Pierre-Normand

I agree with that.

When our attention is directed at the future, we assume many things may actually occur, these are ontological possibilities. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think they're still logical possibilities.

Say you're in a casino and you toss a die onto a craps table. As the die tumbles along, you may imagine 6 different outcomes. But you know apriori that every event has only one outcome.

If the die lands with the 2 face up, it is impossible that any other number also is. So in what sense were there 6 possibilities? Only logically.

Thanks dude. I have glanced at the iep. So far the most helpful author I've found is Nicholas Jolley. He explains how Leibniz varied from Descartes and Aristotle, and how his thoughts about substance remained fluid.

One feature of Leibniz is that he believed that all monads see truth to some degree. So all philosophers are right about some things.

But on closer examination, Leibniz didn't think of bodies as qualifying as substance. Bodies are phenomenal. Substances are eternal. If there's a distinction between mind, soul, monad, and substance in Leibniz's view... I'm not sure what it is. But I think the next stop should be the predicate-in-notion principle, which seems pretty familiar to me, but I've never thought of it as a theory of truth.

Morality is commonly defined as ideals of behaviour or conduct.

Do you know of an exception?

Yep.

Seems like there ought to be a lesson in there somewhere.

What a moderator posts in a reply on the forum, and how a moderator moderates the forum are two distinct things. I'm sure we all know that — Metaphysician Undercover

It's all about the message. Actions follow... or not.. who cares? That's from my upcoming book: What I learned from watching Donald Trump.

The truth is that I'm secretly in charge, all behind the scenes and such. It's so secret in fact, that even at the highest levels they aren't aware of it. — Wosret

Even NASA doesn't know about it?

"In a war of ideas, better ideas win." -- Mubin Shaikh

There's been a fair amount of misunderstanding from the start, apparently.

I'm sure Unenlightened won't mind me helping others to avoid making the same mistake I did... so explaining that if he seems totalitarian, that's not a reflection of how the moderators actually feel about things.

Those are baby predators.

Everybody loves a little pedantry. You, Baden, and Sapientia all let me know that I had misunderstood Un and again, I appreciate your taking the time to answer my concern.

You usually refer to yourself in the plural? That's weird.

I don't buy (logical) identity through time (or identity in the indiscernibles sense) as anything other than an abstract way of thinking about things. Me at time T1 is not identical to me at time T2. The "two mes" are causally and contiguously etc. connected, but not identical. — Terrapin Station

Sure. I'm familiar with that view. My question about it would be whether it runs aground in the face of something like GE Moore's thoughts about common sense. You may say you don't recognize contiguity past to future, but don't your actions contradict that sentiment?

That you rightly qualify with "some" and "most" and "in my experience" and "I think" is telling, and flies in the face of your first sentence. It can, in some situations, be morally wrong. — Sapientia

Seems like kind of a side-issue to me. Analytical philosophers stipulate. Phenomenologists refer to their own experiences. If we-none-of-us thought there might be room for improvement in our calculations, we wouldn't bother seeking out discussion, would we?

Just based on what I understand about the nature of assertion and morality, beliefs aren't virtue-apt.

I just made that up. Virtue-apt.

These things must be tolerated by them in feedback for the sake of openness, but they do not have to like it or be impressed by it, any more than you have to like my tone in responding to such nonsense. — unenlightened

So again, really simply.. there is no need for you to come across in a dictatorial fashion. Your fellow moderators agree with that and have informed me that I misunderstood you.

If this issue arises again in future, I think we'll just need to discuss it again and have you admit once again that in moderating the forum, you are interested in the input of the community of members that make up this forum.

Not hard to grasp, I wouldn't think.

I don't agree with your metaphysics there (which we should know from the wax discussion). The living, breathing, being is identical to the form in my view. — Terrapin Station

I've spent as little time as possible working in my region's intensive care burn unit, but just enough to be able to assert pretty confidently that skin color isn't what a person is.

There is some metaphysics to how the same person can take a number of different forms. I'm into Leibniz's views these days.

My own view has something to do with how I understand love. Love isn't friendly. It's not a matter of wanting to make somebody happy. Love is how you see the person behind the face. Love conquers racism. There are two viewpoints which would contradict me on that... the view that a person is their skin color and self-anti-realism. It never ceases to crack me up when a self-anti-realist proposes to teach other people about racism. Jesus...

I think people tend to see "cartoon versions" of everyone/everything. We tend to see simplified caricatures, and part of that is a factor of simple categorization, simple abstraction. Taking in every detail, every nuance, is too much for our brains to handle. We simplify, we merge things together as types, we focus on fewer features and that focus amounts to exaggeration, etc. — Terrapin Station

I think people vary in that. It's not really a matter of taking in more data to see the person behind the face, skin-color, religion, gender, etc. I've wondered over the years what exactly it is. It's something you can shift in and out of... seeing the living, breathing, being that animates the form versus seeing mainly the form.

Belief that a certain race has a certain 'superior aspect' or 'advantage' = matter-of-fact (even if it is not, in fact, fact) and cannot be morally right or wrong. — Ovaloid

It's not morally wrong to think that Asians are good at math. It's a stereotype that will be confirmed by some Asians you meet and disconfirmed by others. To the extent that you demonstrate to Asians in your environment that you see them through a lens of stereotype, you broadcast: "I don't see you, I just see a cartoon version of you."

My experience with Asian-Asians is that even if they're put off by that, they won't say anything. American-Asians are pretty much guaranteed to put it out there that you're being racist. I think most of them do that because they think its funny.

If, on the other hand, you point out that most top-level basketball players are black, most people in your environment are going to wonder what your point is. That there are differences between blacks and whites is a pretty radioactive topic in my culture. That's because we all sit on a giant wound in varying stages of healing. At some point in the future when it's finally healed, we'll be able to address that kind of thing.

I am very interested in how the community thinks and feels — unenlightened

Good. I'm glad to hear that.

It is curious, given that I have made not a single edit, deletion, move, or ban, that my statement of fact is being called offensive, totalitarian, unnecessary, and so on. — unenlightened

It was unnecessary and it was the kind of comment I've seen from you many times. The next time you make that sort of remark, we can hash it out again, OK?

Don't despair, folks. It's not as bad as the previous post might make you think.

See here:

http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/485/how-totalitarian-does-this-forum-really-need-to-be#Item_16

Un's remark there was clearly tongue-in-cheek, and therefore shouldn't be taken so seriously. — Sapientia

You're probably right. I won't take it seriously.

But seriously, what's with all this drama on the forum tonight? — Sapientia

I'm not apologizing for it. I found Un's "I'm in charge and nobody gives a shit what you think" schtick to be unacceptable at the old forum. I'd rather not see it start up here.

That's all.

Could be. I appreciate your taking the time to discuss it.

You both agree with me that the moderators are interested in the opinions of the other members.

It's not a democracy, and while we all like to argue about rules and principles, decisions are made by the aforementioned offensive fuckers according to the kind of stuff they like and don't like to see — unenlightened

So, I don't know if Un was drinking when he wrote this, but no one was called an offensive fucker. I told him he didn't need to be fucking offensive, referring to the dictatorial tone he had just taken with another poster.

Come on, guys. His statement very clearly indicates that he has no interest in what anyone "likes to see" other than himself and the other moderators. You think I misunderstood him?

Really?

I think you've taken un up the wrong way. To say it's not a democracy here is just a fact. Neither the site owners nor the mods are elected, and it's not practical to hold referendums on moderating decisions. That doesn't mean we don't consider the needs of the community as a whole here or how they like to see things handled. — Baden

In that statement, Un. said that members vote with their presence, which I took as an invitation to leave. I would like to see Un endorse your statement that the moderators are interested in how the whole community thinks and feels.

Do you actually have an issue with the moderation, or just with something that Un said? — shmik

I did disagree with the decision to fold a poster's topic into a kind of trash-bin thread, but I didn't address it directly because the damage was done. I did comment in that thread that beliefs shouldn't be thought of as moral or immoral. That attitude actually closes down the possibility of discussion, and I believe Unenlightened's totalitarian demeanor does as well.

I appreciate Unenlightened's desire to protect the forum, but that attitude is not needed here and poses more harm than good.

There's a bit of a better vibe than the old place, there isn't the same feeling that everyone's head is just a couple bad posts from being on the chopping block. Maybe that's just an illusion since it's mostly the same mods here anyway. — shmik

Paul did admit to me that the old forum was over-moderated in regard to banning. He explained how that situation evolved. I've no issues at all with any of the mods feeling the need to be heavy handed except Unenlightened, who is falling into the exactly the same "I'm the thought-police" attitude that he had at the old forum. As I said, I don't think it's necessary.

I may be wrong about various things, but if I am, it's obviously out of ignorance, not malice. I assume the same is true of everyone.

Further, there are opportunities that will be lost where belief itself is put on trial. In order to engage others in an exchange of ideas, it will be necessary to allow free expression.

Moderators and admins and site owners. — unenlightened

As if you folks would do that without any interest at all in the thoughts of the members. No need to be fucking offensive, un.

Re this quote from Barry. Can any moderators give such a rational account of why my post was bad enough (not that I consider it bad at all) for deletion to be justified? — Ovaloid

Just start over, dude. Post your question in a non-inflammatory fashion. If you don't know what that is, I'd say there's no time like the present to learn!

There is a common misconception that one is entitled to one's opinion: — Barry Etheridge

It's not a misconception. It's a principle. You either like it or you don't.

One is a number, that's true. And numbered subjects is Russell's beef with the "world apart" and in fact, all of German idealism.

So keep expecting more... numbers.

It could be done with an amendment, but why would it require that?

Democrats believe the most charitable act is to take an able bodied person and to jam his face into the biggest teat he can find so that person will no longer have to work. — Hanover

So you're a Democrat?

A Republican SCOTUS might overturn Roe v Wade. That would suck.

That's an interesting issue you've raised there.

The belief itself is OK, but the prejudice, discrimination, antagonism and/or contempt that goes along with it isn't. — Ovaloid

I agree that beliefs can't be inherently good or evil. I say that because I believe morality is about actions, not beliefs (Jesus disagreed with that... but oh, well.)

The particular belief we're considering tends to equate a person with their facial features and skin color. Since the underpinning of this belief is a materialistic outlook, you could argue that if we're going to vilify beliefs, it should start there: materialism is evil.

Of course, that's ridiculous. Just because materialism can potentially lead to racism and ultimately to black men being burned to death, it's not true that materialism is evil.

Maybe that would be the better way to explore the question philosophically. It has less chance of being perceived as Neo-Nazi adaptationist crap.

This seems like a very reasonable thing to say.What opposition is there to this claim? — hunterkf5732

Behaviorism was once a popular opposing view, but Chomsky squashed it. It still lingers in various forms.

Hmm. Cool.