It is not a bunch of phenomena. It is a series of actions taken by human beings, following a series of decisions made by other human beings. An individual, or co-ordinated group of individuals has to do what an individual orders them to do after an individual has decided on a strategy. At every point in that process, a human being has to consult his own conscience: "Is this the right course of action?" — Vera Mont

But what is this "war"? What is "war"? It is not something that an individual can have... Do you think war is can be legitimatee?

you deploy them to the field where they can move and operate. You can choose which terrain you defend, but choosing an urban environment isn't hiding. It's more about trying to make that urban area your fortress. — ssu

So that is the question at hand.. What do you do in this case in modern warfare.. The extent by which you engage the enemy in a fortress whereby they use the public and private buildings...

During WW2 and prior ot WW2 the idea was of bombing urban centers was to force the countries to surrender ...without a long WW1 -type of war. Douhet started from the idea that strategic bombing, bombing of the cities and hence the civilians, would bring a quick peace. From Air and Spaceforces magazine writes on Douhet: — ssu

Indeed, I would say that is not even what is happening in the current conflict as a strategy (though various tactical errors can be questioned)... More apt is the fortress analogy here.

Of course somehow the idea doesn't take into consideration the enemy also believing this. As Arthur Harris, the commander of the British Bomber Command, put it: "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." — ssu

That truly is a ridiculous belief.. as if the Germans had some monopoly on that strategy...Indeed you reap what you sow...

My thinking emerges from these very categories I have been grappling with, in some "points" intersecting across philosophers, in other places, divergent only superficially, in still others, clearly divergent. — ENOAH

I could be wrong but, I don’t think Schop makes the distinction between Thing in Itself and noumenal. For schop Will is Thing itself is Noumena…however I suppose the notion of Will, it’s feeling to us as representation is Thing itself, and perhaps the ascetics Denial, is akin to Noumena or some such playing with the concepts

Nice assist, appreciated. — DifferentiatingEgg

And thank ye kind sir.

Nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone. Although our selves may be illusory creations of consciousness, our pain is nonetheless real. — Thomas Ligotti

@180 Proof

Nice quote there! I almost feel TCATHR is a literal counter to this whole notion, not to mention Schopenhauer..

Naturally the industrial base of the military industrial complex is a rightful target, but from there you can easily enlarge the target scope to the population in general. After all, Douhuet's idea of bombing cities was to make the population loose support for the war and have peace come more quickly.

Typically the impact was quite the opposite: bombing of cities increased the determination of the civilian population to support the war. — ssu

Ah gotcha.. What about bombing Nazis/Japanese Imperial forces that hid within population centers? The intent is not to kill civilians, but the outcome might be civilian deaths if one pursues them. Also if we couple this with Social Contract theory, do states not have obligations to protect its own citizens if possible from undue death in its calculations? In theory, if there were no sides, but we were but robots, the universal rule would be that civilians and protecting one's own troops from sending in a hellish ground assault that would be way costlier on one's own troop's levels and morales, would be considered equal, but is is it even moral to not consider protecting one's own troops and not prolonging a war, putting one's troops in what would look to be a way more deadly approach? This is why I said earlier here:

But this is my point. This is why "ethics proper" would be a category error to apply to "governments". For example, how can one understand the "ethics" of "war" or "commerce" or "economic policy" AS APPLIED to individuals. These are inherently things only applied to state apparatuses and institutions. That is to say, "governmental entities". That is why I would split government or political ethics as a different domain than individual ethics. It is now dealing with abstract entities of state actors, which are liable to things such as "wars", "tariffs", "treaties", and the like, all things that are not done at an individual level.

So here we have a situation whereby Israel is claiming that it was attacked, which, similar to say, a Pearl Harbor situation, would lead it to declare war, or some military response to the attacker.

They have obviously now done so against Hamas, who had initiated the current conflict by killing civilians indiscriminately, brutally, and whathaveyou.

So now, Israel is conducting a war where it must face various modern dilemmas, that state actors must do in war. The main dilemma is, unlike battles in the 1700s or 1800s which were often done on open fields, these asymmetrical wars, are often conducted in urban environments, whereby the soldiers hide in plain clothes. In this case, it is even more stark because billions of dollars were put into tunnel systems that wrap around, under, and into civilian infrastructure, basically making the whole city a web-fortress.

Then the calculations of how to conduct the war. In such a messy, web-like urban environment, let's say there are two ways of conducting the war to get rid of Hamas.

Let's say there are two broad approaches:
A1) Just ground troops
A2) Aerial bombardment and ground troops.

A1)Let us say, if the first approach was the one taken, 10x the casualties on one's own side would take place, and the war would become bogged down to indefinite, hellish levels for one's own troops because it would become essentially an unending maze or trap.

A2) The second broad approach allows your troops enough room to maneuver and eventually go in and fight more aggressively, saving lives for your own troops, and ending the war more quickly.

So, I am fine discussing international law.. But it will simply get bogged down to various instances whereby "Did this fighter, by ducking into a building, make that building a legitimate target in the eyes of international law".. Having civilians as "human shields" doesn't make the enemy use it as a "get out of jail free" during a war. As we both agreed, (even if we detest war and violence), war is a "legitimate" thing countries can wage. — schopenhauer1

The same ethic applies to those men in the Cabinet as applies to them in their homes. War - like every other executive decision - is not the same kind of decision as any other: it's bigger than most and involves other people, willingly or reluctantly, with informed consent or unwittingly. But it's not the size and scope of the decision that determines ethics, and there is not a closet full of ethical varieties to choose among for different occasions.They don't get to shed their citizen ethic like a robe and put on their governance ethic along with the striped suit. — Vera Mont

This is a bit of a straw man, as it isn't just size and scope that is different here, but the very content is different. "War" is something between states. You can use the word analogously, "I am going to war with you!" but the fact that there is a legitimacy in using violent, large-scale means that bring with it other phenomena like collateral damage, drafts, and the like means that it is something different in kind than anything that an individual can do. That is to say, "War" is seen as something legitimate when done for self-defense, on a state level, and involves aspects that can never really be analogous to the individual (i.e. collateral damage, sending other people in harms way, etc.).

Thus, if we agree that "war" is something that is legitimate to wage in certain circumstances, we must understand all that entails... which means possible civilian deaths due to war, which presumably, would be part of this phenomenon, legitimate or not.

More than one person has come here suggesting this post is you projecting your difficulty with the material upon others. That's probably worth noting. — DifferentiatingEgg

I don’t mind being ignorant. I know nothing. But hate/gate keeping and elitism are often part of the Wittgenstein social landscape, and that’s unacceptable to me as a teacher/learner. It’s also bad faith to never accept criticism of one’s favorite philosopher and make the move that “You just don’t have a good or the correct understanding”. Do you believe that Wittgenstein can only be refuted by better readings of Wittgenstein or could Wittgenstein just be wrong and refuted thus?

Edited more there @Josh

I had a long response, but after reading over @Antony Nickles post again, I can see that he isn't being overly forceful with the fandom (taking the author as right, and thus whatever the author says is beyond reproach), as I totally agree with his sentiments here:

I would put it that some people have particular interests in philosophy, and so take Wittgenstein as pointless or trivial, and some use Wittgenstein to attempt to dictate others’ interests, which is not the point either. — Antony Nickles

That is to say, instead of believing Wittgenstein thought his works dissolved the problems, his works actually dissolves the problems... And in this view, there is no fight because Wittgenstein already had the checkmate. So in this point of view, having an objection is simply not reading him correctly.

I think he is good-intestioned, not malicious but if my critiques of a philosopher could never get beyond the philosopher in question, I don’t know what to call that. As if, the only reason Wittgenstein is (can be or is) wrong is because we don’t know enough Wittgenstein…just knowing his philosophy obviously shows Wittgenstein is right, right? Let me present to you more Wittgenstein so we can see how right Wittgenstein is.

And the debate about the justification would be quite similar to the debate about terror bombings. — ssu

Bombing of terrorists you mean. One is a reaction of self-defense, the other is to attack in the first place, causing the defensive reaction.

Maybe inadvertently, I think this helps make the point, as that is the reciprocal of how their interests are regarded by him. — Wayfarer

I see what you did there :smirk:. Why does Nickles post seem exactly like an example of what I’m talking about (like using more Wittgenstein to prove or disprove Wittgenstein)? Or is the irony not as glaring as it seems to be showcasing? Hell even using other philosophers to prove or disprove Wittgenstein seems like it is bordering on eliciting as the said title of this thread states. I. Don’t. Get. It. It’s like Wittgenstein has almost a “brand” of unique elitism and self-referential back-patting smugness that only that brand does best.

What are the rules of these ethics that apply to states? — Tzeentch

As I stated above:

I don’t know, can you declare war as an individual? What makes a government declare war and not you if it’s all the same kind of decisions?

Clearly government has decisions that are things that can't obtain at the level of an individual. And it isn't just that the individual making decisions are doing it on behalf of himself, but is in some sense, on behalf of the state, in the capacity as an official in power, governing the state... — schopenhauer1

Maybe it happened differently, the basic issue is purity and not washing hands. I don't believe Job actually happened as described but the book still presents important/true/profound ideas (one might even say divine revelation) and is true in its own sense regardless of whether it happened exactly the way described. — BitconnectCarlos

Right, ok, we agree that the NT isn't the most reliable source. However, I think as you are implying, we can take certain kernels of the historical person from it..

One of the things the NT is selling is that Jesus was opposed to the Pharisees. By the time the NT was written, the Gentile Church was already solidified under a Pauline understanding- one antagonistic to the newly forming Rabbinical and Synagogue Judaism that was forming in the Galilee (at varying times in Yavneh, Sepphoris, Tiberius, and Caesarea), and the diaspora, respectively. The antagonism in the NT between the "Pharisees" (predecessors of Rabbinic Judaism), and Jesus was reflected in these debates.

However, what is the historical context here is that Pharisees had their own disagreements. They believed that the Prophets held sway (the Sadducees did not, and the Essenes were also super interested in the Prophets, and especially eschatological matters, like in Daniel and Zechariah, etc.).

There were internal disputes at the time BETWEEN the sects.. Sadducees for example, didn't even RECOGNIZE the later prophets.. So clearly Jesus wasn't from that group. Even this character of Jesus is backing his notions using prophets..The Talmud itself, uses later Prophets to provide context to earlier Torah halachic understanding... I literally just pulled a random quote from a Talmudic passage, and it proved my case (using later prophets to justify earlier halacha):

The Gemara responds that there is a difference between the cases. There, at the time of the afternoon prayer, drunkenness is uncommon, as it is unusual to drink excessively during the day. However, here, in the case of the evening prayer, drunkenness is common, and therefore there was room to issue a decree requiring one to interrupt his meal to recite the evening prayer. Alternatively, it is possible to explain that with regard to the afternoon prayer, since its time is fixed, he is anxious, and he won’t come to be negligent and forget to pray. However, with regard to the evening prayer, since all night is the time for the evening prayer, he is not anxious, and he will come to be negligent.

Rav Sheshet strongly objects to this: Is it a burden to tie his belt? In addition, if it is a burden, let him stand that way, without a belt, and pray. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to wear a belt while praying, since it is stated: “Prepare to greet your God, Israel” (Amos 4:12). One must prepare and adorn himself when standing before God. — Chapater 1 10a

So like a Pharisee, Jesus is debating OTHER pharisees, or at least in the vein of Pharisaic style debate.

Now there is a heurmeneutics that many historians agree makes logical sense.. "Whatever is embarrassing to Church doctrine left in the text most probably a historical artifact that was left in the text. A Pharisaic Jesus, for example would be embarrassing for Church doctrine..

But you have the character of Jesus say curious things like this:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.

Now one can interpret the character of Jesus in multiple ways.. but look at this passage:

There are seven types of [false] Pharisees: the Shechemite Pharisee, the Nakfaite Pharisee, the Miktzoite Pharisee, the Machobaite Pharisee, the Pharisee for the sake of a profession, the Pharisee who was obligated by marriage, the Pharisee driven by lust, and the Pharisee driven by fear. — Avot DeRabbi Natan 37:4

There are seven kinds of religious people: Religious on the shoulder, religious on credit, religious balancing, religious “what is the deduction,” religious “I shall do it when I realize my guilt,” religious from fear, religious from love. Religious on the shoulder, he carries his deeds onhis shoulder. Religious on credit, “give me credit that I can perform commandments.” Religious balancing, he commits one sin and observes one commandment and balances one against the other. Religious “what is the deduction,” what I have that is what I am using to deduct for doing a commandment… — "Jerusalem

§ It states in the mishna: And those who injure themselves out of false abstinence [perushin] are people who erode the world. The Sages taught: There are seven pseudo-righteous people who erode the world: The righteous of Shechem, the self-flagellating righteous, the bloodletting righteous, the pestle-like righteous, the righteous who say: Tell me what my obligation is and I will perform it, those who are righteous due to love, and those who are righteous due to fear.… — Sotah 22b:2-6

Also look at this in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 1:4):
There were disputes that led to bloodshed between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai.. If disputes got so heated that it led to bloodshed between to Pharisaic houses, would a bit of angry "Woe to the...(Shammaite?) instead of general "Pharisee", but more historically accurate?

In US politics, look at conservative and liberal aspects to any political party.. The election of Gerald Ford vs. Ronald Regan.. For what it means to be conservative.. Or a Southern Democrat vs. a Northern Democrat in the 60s.

All I'm saying is that perhaps legitimately internal debates became "seized upon" by the Gospel writers to make Jesus "other", which is necessary to help move him along as NOT an itinerant blend of Pharisaic and Essenic Judaism, but a sort of non-contexted, universal Cynic.

In any case, I'm onboard with your judgment that Jesus had a Pharisaic-Essenaic background. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, I guess we have some common ground we can work from then in understanding this. I'll have to get back to the halachic stuff later. I think i just read your first sentence and kind of jumped on that in my first comment. It looks like you are open beyond a simple refutation of the Jesus as presented ver batim from the NT....

If you have a criticism about the basic premise I'm open to hearing it. I will take the scenario as gospel until shown otherwise. E.g. if handwashing wasn't a thing at that time that would be relevant. This position on purity is also stated in multiple gospels. — BitconnectCarlos

It's not the scenario per se.. You also realize the synoptic gospels build off each other.. Matthew and Luke and Thomas have a common Q, for example. Matthew elaborates from Mark which is prior to Matthew, etc. So of course there are similarities.... But, you are not addressing my main point, which do you agree that the NT was written and written and presented in a way to create a certain narrative Jesus?

And if you do accept this, do you agree that if you simply take what is presented at face value, and justify that it must be the actual history, this is a form of apologetics?

And if you accept this, do you agree that by arguing as if what is presented at face value, even if it is to say that the character of Jesus is wrong, by accepting what is presented, and then explaining your view in opposition to this, you are also participating in a form of apologetics (against the position of the Jesus that orthodox/fundamental Christians take as to what happened?).. There are many things in the NT btw.. Can we agree that the virgin birth didn't happen, and the Logos is tacked on? And that certain miracles were simply attributed and didn't happen, etc.? So we can at least establish that there are unreliable aspects to the NT..

I'm not sure how we would go about "deconstructing" this. — BitconnectCarlos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misquoting_Jesus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Etc. etc. etc.

We don't need to take the footnote as gospel. — BitconnectCarlos

Do we have to take the gospel as gospel?
See here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/905403

I don’t know, can you declare war as an individual? What makes a government declare war and not you if it’s all the same kind of decisions?

Clearly government has decisions that are things that can't obtain at the level of an individual. And it isn't just that the individual making decisions are doing it on behalf of himself, but is in some sense, on behalf of the state, in the capacity as an official in power, governing the state...

The Pharisees chide Jesus's — BitconnectCarlos

Is this according to the NT or deconstructed? You realize the NT is selling a narrative, not history right? That Biblical and early Christian scholars try to reconstruct from the given religious text, comparing it to other sources, and what can be constructed of the time period right? You are simply doing your version of apologetics if you don’t understand this point. I’ll get to the other stuff which just makes me do a long sigh in that I have to address it.

6.4 All propositions are of equal value.
6.41 The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does happen: in it no value exists — ibid.

I think it wrong on the face of it, as the world can't exist without a knower/known (pace Schopenhauer).

If value is imputed by the knower, the knower is always in the equation.. as per Schopenhauerian metaphysics.

Well, I was being cheeky there.. I was not in favor of the bits and pieces, science thing :smile:.

I think it might be fair to say of the "anti-metaphysical movement," more broadly that it was the most dogmatic since late scholasticism, or at least that it had the greatest combined ability and desire to enforce its dogma. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:up:

If you can't be useful to technology and science, best be dogmatic about philosophies that only focus on the bits and pieces, and not the whole I guess... As I indicated in another post, it's easier to be taken seriously when you say something anyone can get on board with... "What I can verify is what is all that can be discussed", "The economy is paramount in policy".. You say something quite commonsensical, then philosophy starts becoming the handmaiden of common sense rather than a way anything else. That isn't necessarily appropriate or good, just convenient to be relevant or pragmatic-sounding, and thus gain a sort of cache.. "I'm not a scientist or engineer, but I play one in philosophy" :cool:.

Where does an opposing view start? A rebuttal of a narrative? A different frame of reference? — Paine

Either, both. Schopenhauer, Hegel, the proceeding Existentialists, the absurdists, the Platonists, the realists, all might have a different view than Heidegger's approach of da sein..

self-referential and largely incapable of interacting with the large number of alternative views. — Leontiskos

Head nod.... :smile:

Ironically (and why he admitted the nonsense) what I see happens when people gatekeep arguments against Wittgenstein or Nietzsche, in a raw simplified sense, they turn Wittgenstein’s or Nietzsche’s position into a sort of gospel truth - where the meaning objectively is - which is the opposite of what either was purporting to demonstrate. (They forget to throw away the ladder when they point to the words, which points to maybe a reason the words need more investigation.) — Fire Ologist

I think this restates my point quite succinctly.. Thanks for sharing it!

@Wayfarer@Count Timothy von Icarus

I'll leave you with this for now.. (I'll be back though).. Is there any other philosopher, who you can quite do this sort of "You cannot refuteth thus, without using the Prophets own methods/ideas!".. I don't think so, I don't think you can get away with doing that without being called a dogmatist.. But oddly, because Witt is seen as an "anti-dogmatist par excellance" one can thus hide behind this notion to actually become a Wittgensteinian dogmatist.. I don't know, just an idea.

It's also the notion that if one just really parses out Wittgenstein's Koans (aphorisms or propositions), one will "get it".. One just has to interpret Wittgenstein to the best ability..

One can always chastise oneself for not knowing enough, and by not knowing enough, one is not "getting it fully".. But why wouldn't that same thing be for any other philosopher? And that's why the style also makes people carried away that if they JUST READ a bit more of his biography, JUST READ his notes a bit better, they can understand his main works better, and thus gain the gnosis that they seek in the anti-dogmatic "enlightenment" of the great Witt... If you just knew that he was against certainty, and that language was use, and that language is about facts, and that all else is nonsense....

Science tells us facts about the world and metaphysics is nonsense, or that language meaning is how you use it, just seems like therapy to me for something that wasn't a problem..

It reminds me of people who want to be seen as supremely moderate, so say things like, "It's all about the economy", or something like that.. Yeah, who isn't going to get on board with that?

@Count Timothy von Icarus

Dang, this Rorty essay is the gift that keeps on giving...

I have been describing a three-cornered debate. In one corner are the natu-ralists, who want to get past the linguistic turn. In another are the prag-matic Wittgensteinians, who think that replacing Kantian talk about ex-perience, thought, and consciousness with Wittgensteinian talk about the uses of linguistic expressions helps us replace worse philosophical theories with better ones. In a third are the Wittgensteinian therapists, for whom the importance of the linguistic turn lies in helping us realize that philosophers have failed to give meaning to the words they utter. The people in the first 6 Minar 1995, 413.
7corner do not read Wittgenstein at all, and those in the other two read him very differently. I want now to describe the differences between these two readings in more detail. The two camps disagree about the relation between early and later Wittgenstein. The therapists take the last pages of the Tractatus very seri-ously indeed. They do their best to tie them in with the metaphilosophical portions of Philosophical Investigations. In sharp contrast, the pragmatists tacitly dismiss the final passages of the Tractatus as an undigested residue of Schopenhauer. They regard sections 89-133 of the Investigations as an unfortunate left-over from Wittgenstein’s early, positivistic period—the period in which he thought that “The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science” (4.11). They have no more use for the claim that “The results of philosophy are the uncovering of one or another piece of plain nonsense” (PI 129) than for the earlier claim that “Most of the propo-sitions and questions to be found in philosophical works are not false but nonsensical” (4.003). — Wittgenstein and the Linguistic Turn- Richard Rorty

Absolutely!

@Tom Storm

Is there a part where it talks about Wittgenstein admonishing Wittgenstein's adherents? This comes to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ytKdbz_ThOg

@Count Timothy von Icarus
Damn, I don't know how it is I can agree and disagree with someone so much, as I do in that Rorty passage you quoted. I agree with his assessment on Wittgenstein's affect/intended affect on the reader, but I disagree on his own notion of what philosophy is for at the same time. Either way, just that passage alone engenders me to Rorty's good faith in explaining his views, rather than trying to elicit in the reader the gnosis through "showing". I just don't buy the schtick from Witt, just as Rorty doesn't buy it from him, nor from Kierkegaard's similar attempt to "explode illusions".. or whatnot.

Well, this thread is how people use Wittgenstein.. And one part of that "arsenal" is exactly the idea that Wittgenstein "didn't want to participate" like the others.. This reminds of the "othering" of Jesus- to make him sui generis from the context of the thought and history from which it is supposed to be a part of.

:lol:

Nah go ahead..

Having said that, ironically, am now inspired to look further into W. I don't know why I very quickly bypassed him in my recent pursuit. — ENOAH

Oh god.. please, don't (ironically unironically) turn into the thing we are discussing.. You too will become the borg/zombie/fanboy....

Agree that the OP title could have been worded more tactfully. But I see the point. — Wayfarer

:razz:

I've often noticed that philosophical ideas I want to discuss are smothered by Wittgenstein's admonition the last line of the TLP, 'that of which we cannot speak'. I've been accused in the last day of 'saying things that shouldn't be said', in my (probably clumsy) attempts at understanding classical metaphysics. — Wayfarer

And I find it interesting that "Facts" and "State of Affairs" are just taken as givens, thus stated.. As if you make your sentences stark enough, you can make statements of metaphysics that can be the exception... Because it is just a skeleton "showing" you.. duh! Unlike YOU, Wayfarer, with your overrought metaphysical constructs. Go kick rocks bud! Come back when you want to discuss the FACTS.

Hah. Seriously? I genuinely found it compelling. Again, I'm clearly a novice. Explain if you wish. Otherwise I'll keep a more critical eye out. — ENOAH

Maybe I misinterpreted you, but the mentality that "Witt had it right and we now have to dance around figuring out the right interpretation of the great Prophet" seems to be what's being criticized here.. Or part of it is that...

Again you said:

Wittgenstein answers the question. The rest of us are too busy embarassed by or ignoring the answer. — ENOAH

Did I interpret that wrong?

If nothing is at stake in considering differing points of view. If Wittgenstein is truly a valueless cipher, then he should be ignored. By you and me. — Paine

I think it is a good idea that if you are opposed to an idea to be able to explain what it is you are opposed to. This can be instructive as much as explaining why it is you support a philosopher. Should we just engage with philosophies that we agree with or that seem "right" to us only? I don't believe in everything Hegel said let's say, but doesn't mean I should ignore his ideas. Sometimes engaging with ideas bring about more ideas, etc. It opens up one's own thoughts on things and perhaps solidifies or makes one have to reason more about an issue when grappling with it. Or it provides a jumping off point to view the historical and contemporaneous views that led to this particular view.

If both sides of the coin are different kinds of irrelevance, then the discussion is meaningless. — Paine

How would the discussion be meaningless?

Thanks for the link!

As for the other comments- fascinating!

If you think Goodness is a mirage, or else a standard you develop pragmatically, then obviously this has implications for discourse. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Can you explain more how this idea of Goodness relates to the Wittgenstein thing? I just need that tie-in and I can perhaps make a comment or two.

Then I guess I did not understand what you meant by the coin flip comment. Can you elaborate?