There is no originals in Philosophy. — Corvus

We'll credit this to an enthusiasm fueled by maybe wine. Silliness from a bottle - unless the bottle is you.

1) If Jesus did not rise from the dead, can there be a rational belief in Christianity? and 2) If one is not sure if Jesus actually rose from the dead, can they still have a rational belief in Christianity? — BT

Answers. 1) Yes, of course. 2) Yes, of course. How or why not? What if anything Christian or about Christianity requires any belief in anything non-rational? The proposition here is that Christianity cleansed of all supernatural and non-rational aspects is just Christianity.

Of course at the same time, membership in certain "clubs" may depend upon having certain beliefs, but when was Christianity ever about being a member of a club? That is, beliefs, having them, is not a shibboleth for Christianity or for being a Christian. But living one's life in accord with certain principles is.

The creeds, Apostle's or Nicene, much is made about them. But what do they say? In short, "We believe...". The "believe" being an absolute defense against all argument. And a lot of members of clubs forget this - or never knew it - that the church in its creeds chooses belief for efficacy, steering clear of claims of facts that were then and are now ultimately insupportable.

And so-called Christians today forget or never knew that their Christianity was invented and refined centuries after the fact by a lot people who, obviously, were not there, their own efforts based on hearsay from folks, like Paul, who were not there. And it's relatively easy research to learn that early Christianity before its "improvement" was different and more radical from its engineered successor.

Bottom line, arguments about beliefs are a waste of time. Except as people might act on the basis of their beliefs, and that has been historically a deadly business.

In any of these disparate venues, I am confident that the denial of the Resurrection would be considered the gravest of heresies. This is going to hold true for my Mormon and Amish neighbors. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No doubt. But what, exactly, of it? What, exactly, is the significance of being said to hold certain views that some people say are heretical? Not just a rhetorical question, but one answerable and that should be answered.

Granted there was a time, and in some places even now, holding certain views - note I do not call them beliefs - or not holding certain beliefs, can get you hurt or killed, but that not to the point.

No one is buying what you’re selling. — NOS4A2

By all means, tell me what I'm selling.

monopoly on what is true and false and that’s a good thing. — NOS4A2

Whatever it is you're referring to is nothing of what I'm referring to.

But tell us, so that we may know: according to you, is there any such thing as truth? Does Trump lie or tell the truth? And are his lies consequential or inconsequential?

Even for the US Constitution there have been 27 amendments. — ssu

The original ten, leaving seventeen. Many administrative, two foolish, and six substantive as to rights. Not bad for 230+ years. As to citizens upholding values, they - we - spoke, and God help us all! Trump is a welsher par excellence on promises, guarantees, obligations, debts, and contracts. And a flouter of laws and judgments.

My limited knowledge of Finnish history tells me Finns have been through matters like this. Smaller scale maybe, but with much greater danger and lethality. Maybe you know a secret or two on how to cope. Share?

you're all a bunch of incompetent greedy lying buggers, — unenlightened

Nothing says nuance like using a punt gun on a flock of pigeons. May I recommend a double charge?

I think the best that can be done with this is to acknowledge that if you're a Christian who believes in the resurrection, and you do not believe in the resurrection, then you are not a Christian who believes in the resurrection. And no progress beyond this without a tedious and contentious fight over the meaning of words. Which door being at the moment shut, is best kept shut.

It comes down to beliefs, and there's no accounting for beliefs.

To people who are suffering, happy-clappy looks plain stupid. — unenlightened

Responding as succinctly and concisely as I can (I looked them up): in many respects Democrats are the messenger, and the stupid shot them.

Some people are poorer (they're always with us), and everything is never fine. But to the extent that any party controls the better and the worse, which do you think has in the US governed for the worse, since, say, Hoover?

The stupid here are like the frogs in Aesop's fable: they wanted a king; they got one, a stork.

I am under the strong impression that the original intention of the founders in establishing the electoral college was to reverse the outcome of the popular vote, should that deserve reversal. They should have done it in 2016,and to be sure, in 2024.

So we have the results: they matters of fact. But the cause(s), the large lies built out of smaller facts and as well other lies.

I take leave of your girlfriend, appreciating her contributions and insights here. And I agree: time is short and we have to make our choices. Trouble arises when we represent our choices and their results as being more than they are.

Also arising is the question of the quality of the secondary source; not all are right and some are plain wrong. And how would anyone know without access to the original? With the result that, as referred to above, sometimes the seeming long way 'round is the shortest and best.

But maybe she knows about short and quick, and can and would appreciate longer and not so quick.

Kant himself wrote that some books would be shorter if they weren't so short; that is, if they didn't scant clarity in favor of brevity, thus in effect taking longer. Or in other terms, too short, too long, and just right. And I myself for my own benefit and uses have tried to condense parts of Kant. And you can't without loss of substance. What you can do, with people you suppose are at least equal with you in shared understanding, is talk in shorthand, code, that evokes unexplicated that shared understanding - but that not the same thing.

It seems to me that the Trump narrative, that things used to be good and have gone to shit is fundamentally true and agrees with the experience of middle America. So the only lie is the promise to make it great again. — unenlightened

How much Kool-Aid have you drunk? You must have a very high tensile strength, being so twisted and stretched without shattering. Look at the history, man! Let's start with a first lie: whose inauguration was bigger, Obama's first or Trump's? Answer! And we can play this game for years, because that is how many lies Trump has told - or forever because he is still lying. And if you repeat and maintain them, then you're a liar as well. Just look at the history.

What fit my narrative.... — Hanover

Two "narratives," neither factual. And neither true. And that leaves open and untouched the question of what the truth is - what the facts are. That information readily available from various sources. Mainly, the US team were a select, experienced, highly trained, very highly motivated group of young players. The Soviet team being then merely a very good professional team. Herb Brooks understood that the Russians were beatable, but they had to be beaten at their own game. Which is what he selected and trained his players to do. Some luck? Sure.

Mike Eruzione of the US team quotes Brooks as saying - which is deleted from later accounts - as they prepared to exit the locker room, that, "If you lose this game, you will take it to your fucking graves, to your fucking graves." Brook's own hockey history argues that he knew what he was talking about, and his players know that too. I doubt the Russian coach gave a similar speech.

It's very hard to fight against cults. — Manuel

I invite you to consider that while fighting is itself hard, that the difficulty is not the fighting with the cults, but making the decision to fight them, and how to fight them. That's their head-start on the rest of us. They act; we react - and for lots of things, that is how it must be. But I would like to see laws that make the reaction time shorter and more direct and explicit.

I have elsewhere offered that lies should be subject to possible criminal and civil penalties, not for their content, although that possible, but for the mere fact of they're being lies.

On education, agreed. Let's call that the carrot. Your opinions on the stick?

As to education, I have direct experience with the USA version, indirect with the "British" system. The general verdict seems to be that the British, though not itself perfect, is wa-ay better than the US. Best in my opinion, would be a lot of British, tempered with some American. What do you say?

Long writings on the philosophical topics tend to be counter productive in its clarity. Usually long writings get avoided and misunderstood by the readers. CPR could have been written in 10 pages prolegomena instead of 800 pages and in two versions. — Corvus

That's right. And I can whistle Beethoven's Ninth. The trouble comes when folks are dismissive because of length. Short, sweet (maybe), and simple - that's how it should be. Is that what your girlfriend thinks?

sn't distrust just a symptom of polarization of viewpoints as opposed to something new? — Hanover

You shall have to decide whether there is any such tig as a truth or a fact. Admittedly some that are claimed to be are not, quite. But that is not to categorically equivocate them as a class.

Equivocation - relativization - destroys not just the structures of facts, truth, and understanding, but also the ground they stand on. If all is just "polarization of viewpoints," then whence distrust? What do you distrust? And how, or why?

and as such we won't get rid of them by treating the symptom itself...
...we need to treat the sickness. — Christoffer

Both. Education for the ignorant (which includes all of us), and appropriate penalties for liars. "Appropriate" meaning penalties that will strongly disincentivize lying.

This isn't to dispense with the idea that there is Truth, but it is to suggest we've always found Truth/God on our side. We're just frustrated because we don't worship a common god. — Hanover

I think you're confusing things that in your own life you likely are not at all confused about. Which for brevity's sake I'll characterize as the difference between facts and "facts" and between truth and "truth." "Facts" of course not being facts, and "truth" not being true; both "facts" and "truth" being lies of one or another kind.

Most - I think all - lies are soluble in appropriate analysis. But this takes skill and work and time and energy. Truth, then, is always chasing the lie. And when it catches it, in my opinion it should tackle the liar hard, hard enough so that he, she, they, will think long hard thoughts about ever lying again.

Simply make the detection/diagnose of a "post-truth" person and then treat him or her accordingly. Understand that he or she will tell the truth only if it suits his or her objectives and agenda.It's just a power game — ssu

And thus the problem. Truth v. power. In a true society, law. In a power society, war. And the mistake - the lesson history large and small teaches repeatedly - is that the liar and his lies require immediate strong response. That, or they just get stronger and bolder. Trump was a criminal from his beginnings: imagine how the world would differ if he had simply been jailed for his crimes then.

And that leaves the question of what to do when law fails?

Imagine a state enforcing historical and scientific truth and you’ll be imagining the most evil regimes in history. — NOS4A2

What does your nonsense even mean? And the trouble with your nonsense is that it seems to both mean and imply something. So let's be clear: truth involves facts. Facts and truth are not "enforced." And the association of facts and truth with "the most evil regimes in history" is vicious perversion.

Well, that's the dilemma, and a serious one. The solution - a solution - is good laws, enforced. Trump should have been incarcerated years ago.

:100: That is one mighty interesting post. Well worth the read and I hope everyone reads it. Private standards of truth v. public. Society as it should be v. what some want it to be. The good public servant giving way to the "expedient."

Leading to a kind of slow-motion (but accelerating) working out of the machinery of Kant's categorical imperative. If you're willing to destroy the world for personal benefit, you should not be surprised if one day you awaken to find your own world destroyed. This a lesson taught large by WW2. A milder version being, be careful what you wish for. And all built up upon the most reliably plentiful of materials for a foundation, the human stupidity that breeds like flies and maggots in the garbage of human ignorance.

But yours also suggestive of ways to approach at least individuals. A man who prides himself on personal honesty can be asked why he tolerates a public liar. One who values order, and law, why he accepts chaos and crime. One who has personal standards for how things should be done, why he welcomes corruption and brutality as public methods.

In terms of rhetorical argument, a combination of compare and contrast with the better and the worse.

And maybe you've seen this one from about 13 years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Hi. I'm not really suggesting any kind of truth commission, although I also think there is substance in the idea. And to be sure, our free press should provide something of that function, which they do. You may recall some years ago a video of an American v. Dutch journalists - I find it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thIRJLsnIxY

They refused to accept his lie or to let him off the hook for it. That we need across the board. We should have started with his claims that his first inauguration was "larger" than his predecessor's first. An obvious and absurd lie.

:100: Seconded.

I think the problem is more pernicious and extends beyond liars and parasites. Post-truth is cynical nihilism. — Fooloso4

:100: As cynical nihilism, post-truth might even be in a perverted sense a principled stance. But I doubt any of our current American crop of post-truthers is capable of principle - or any other principle than a diseased self-interest. If you can think of any, I'll accept correction.

I'm evolving to a belief that as they try to subdue opposition in waves of lies, we best return by insisting on truth and challenging the lies. This is work, demanded by imperatives of history, and not easy. But better than war.

What about when the order to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was given? — Outlander

Clinton and the atom bomb. It would be nice if you were both better informed and better educated. Clinton fooled around. Not nice, also not uncommon. Can we think of another? But Clinton by most measures was a pretty good president. And the bombs. But even Japanese acknowledge they represented a net savings of many, many lives over invasion. And the US warned the Japanese specifically. But they required to be shown, and even after the bombings, some Japanese militarists were still unwilling to surrender. So none of this is on point, or relevant to any point. Nor can I detect any other point in your post, accept as an apologetics for a sick and dangerous man.

Us ordinary citizens can't do a lot about that, of course, but the only antidote to lies is truth and the hope that others will heed it. — Wayfarer

From our friend the internet:

"Guard geese have been used throughout history, and in modern times. In ancient Rome, geese are credited by the historian Livy for giving the alarm when Gauls invaded (see Battle of the Allia).[9][10][11] Geese were subsequently revered in the supplicia canum annual sacrifice, and the Romans later founded a temple to Juno, to whom the geese were considered sacred."

Geese cackle. They also attack. I don't know that any individual attack is appropriate. But we may most-of-us be under a positive obligation to cackle, as long and as much and as loud as needed - calling for truth, calling out the lies.

You act as if this is your first election
You're dealing with ingrained human nature, to benefit oneself over that of another. Deception and unscrupulous behavior is a form of survival. — Outlander

Nope, Truman v. Dewey. Eisenhower v Stevenson the first when I had an opinion. Am I correct to understand your comment as your being unable to tell the difference between, in this case, American presidents?

I try to distinguish between kinds and levels of lying. At some degree, the lie becomes dangerously toxic. Trump in my opinion is about six or more standard deviations from any mean in terms of the danger and toxicity of his lies, and what they have caused and may well cause. His are no more "human nature" than are certain diseases and criminality. That is, by far most people do not have the disease of extreme mendacity. On the other hand, a lot of people are stupid, apparently more than half of American voters.

By "truth" I mean to refer to people who are honest and who value, care about, truth and honesty.
— tim wood
By "truth" you mean people who care about truth? — Leontiskos

Is that what I wrote? Try reading. If English is a challenge, get help.

You say you find Hegel impenetrable. How have you come to this conclusion? — Swanty

It's not "a conclusion." It's my observation about me and my experience. I have similar difficulty reading set theory proofs. In neither case do I suppose either badly written, only that I have trouble understanding them. The corollary being that if I worked at it, I'd more easily understand. But life is short and work is much, many, and long, so I make my choices. And I'm often contented that others do understand and understand better than I do.

But both could have explained their ideas far clearer and with more brevity. — Swanty

For you. I'm obliged to wonder whether, if you think their ideas are so easily compressible, you really understand them.

They are bad writers because they don't summarise their ideas with clarity, but waffle on for pages and pages. — Swanty

I think it's pretty clear where the problem is. As if their texts were like weights in a gym, heavier than most, and you complained, "My gosh but these are difficult - they should be lighter!" No. they're difficult because they're heavier. You just need to get stronger, but as you're young, keep at it and you'll get it.

B&N still stocks.... — Swanty

Because they sell. Period.

But basically they [Kant and Hegel] are bad writers! — Swanty

Tsk, tsk. A categorical statement. You have stated your case, now make it: show us; prove it.

Better in my opinion you had said you find some texts easier and some more difficult - and no disagreement possible. But you said they're bad. Nor am I defending either. I find Kant takes work, which as it happens made me a much stronger reader. And Hegel I find impenetrable. Kant was explicit: he wasn't writing either to me or for me, as @I like sushi observed. And a ready excuse for Hegel provided by one of his translators who explained (I paraphrase here) that Hegel's language was understood by his contemporaries then but not so much us now. And there is also the matter of the style of writing then current. Books written badly usually - always? - quickly disappear. But even now, still, even B&N has both Kant and Hegel on its shelves.

"Brace for impact." - Chesley Sullenberger.

No, these people deserve the sledge hammer of reality to the face. Maybe this time, when Trump policies aren't blocked by democrats in other sectors of the government; the people will actually, finally, open their fucking eyes. — Christoffer

The world needs to politically evolve into caring more for truth. Otherwise we will all live in the utter chaos of a fully post-truth society where nothing matters to people and no one knows where to even begin to find answers to what's actually going on. — Christoffer

:100: :100:

This from Wiki:

"Under Peisistratos of Athens, the Eleusinian Mysteries became pan-Hellenic, and pilgrims flocked from Greece and beyond to participate. Around 300 BC, the state took over control of the mysteries; they were controlled by two families, the Eumolpidae and the Kerykes. This led to a vast increase in the number of initiates. The only requirements for membership were freedom from "blood guilt",[46] meaning never having committed murder, and not being a "barbarian" (being unable to speak Greek). Men, women, and even slaves were allowed initiation."

Can you develop your point a little more? What matter whether Aristotle "went through" the ceremonies?

Question begging happens a lot. But, again, I can't think of an instance in public discourse.... As to complaints about formal logic, — TonesInDeepFreeze

Small point. Public discourse often (usually/always?) uses rhetorical logic - Rhetoric. Not ever to be confused with "formal" logic. Not because one better than the other, but because they're different tools for different purposes. And confusion can happen because in some ways they overlap.

..

I now wonder which way of writing the truth table for MP is correct, 1 or 2?

1. ((p -> q) ^ p) -> q
or
2. ((p -> q) ^ p) ^ q

Makes a difference!

Modus ponendo ponens is the principle that, if a conditional holds and also its antecedent, then its consequent holds." (Beginning Logic - Lemmon)

Perhaps your argument is based on taking that to mean this?:

If a conditional holds and also its antecedent, then modus ponedo ponens is the principle that then its consequent holds. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Be good enough to make clear the difference between these two.

A is a formula.
~A is a formula.
Modus ponens is the principle that for any formulas P and Q, if P and P-> Q, then Q.
So, one instance of modus ponens is: if A and A -> ~A, then ~A. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Agreed. And earlier I posted per truth table, the argument is valid. But not to be confused (not ever) with the conclusion being true. And the "hold(s)" in your definition I take to be the qualification of being true. Thus the form, MP, will carry truth, but it requires truth for truth to be carried. Or in geek terms, GIGO.

I didn't see it, probably missed it; will someone be kind enough to refer me to where the significant terms in this thread are given even a tentative definition?

Intelligence fosters.... Beliefs provide.... Religion helps.... Religion mitigates. — ContextThinker

Sounds very theoretic to me, but the question was to the "comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics driving human belief systems." Assuming there are dynamics and they're complex, what is the comprehensive understanding provided?

Your Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory (ECMT) seems to me a pretty reasonable account of some distinctive phenomena; you nail its weak heel here:

While this theory remains speculative, — ContextThinker

I happen to buy the notion that science does not begin to kick in until c.1600, Galileo and Francis Bacon, the kick coming from, out of, the ascension of Nominalism over Scholastic Realism. (From a book, The Theological Origins of Modernity, Michael A. Gillespie.) Much more said, here:
https://www.amazon.com/Theological-Origins-Modernity-Michael-Gillespie/dp/0226293467