:up:

But my suspicions rest more on what "causal history" might be. It's this that you think somehow "necessary". — Banno

Yes, it is the causal history that is necessary.
I've explained it, but I am sure it looks a bit like word-salad, so I'm going to try to be more deliberate:

First: This came about from the Ryle lecture on determinism. I said that some parts in there reminded of an earlier thread I created on the notion that people often use the expression, "What if it was the case that I was born under different circumstances". What ensued was unpacking what the implications of this could mean. That is to say, one can imagine being born under a different circumstance, but can that imaginative exercise ever "really" be the case? When I examined the idea in the earlier thread that somewhat paralleled Ryle's questions, I noticed that indeed, you really cannot have even been the very person looking back on their life to ask "What if I was born in different X circumstances", because if anything changed prior to this, you would not have been that "person" looking back at their life.

Next: I discussed this line of thought further with @Ludwig V, as to what this could mean. This started to become a discussion about identity, as we can ask ourselves, "If anything had changed even slightly in our past, would that be a different person than the one currently existing in the present"? During this discussion, it dawned on me that, indeed it seems like there is a "point in time" so-to-speak in which there absolutely had to be a "hard stop" for which a person to have become the individual that they would eventually be looking back in their life- and that was conception. Prior to conception, if the parents even had one change to circumstances, there would be no individual even in the POSSIBILITY of existing as they are in the present. Why? Because that sperm and that egg would not have conceived and thus, even if that couple had another child, that child would be another individual, not this one looking back right now on their life.

Third: Now, anything after that conception can be up to debate. Indeed, I even think it is up for debate as to "personal identity". And here you can bring in ideas of choice and institutional facts and how language is used to define and individual within a language community, etc. However, prior to conception, you would not even have the possibility for the person who now exists to exist in the first place, let alone the range of other possibilities that may or may not still be "this person so identified as such".

The "substance" part of this, is simply that the point of conception isn't just an empty causal a priori thing. It is an actual physical event of some kind, of a substance of chemicals and atoms and whatever thing you want to add there of this combination of gametes. But this is simply a result of the causal event itself.

Concluding thoughts: So again, it at the point of the conception of a specific gametes at a point in time and space whereby this individual can become the range of possibilities for that individual (including the actual person that is looking back at his life), and not any time before or after.

Ok, so I guess I'm going to read up on Anscombe's view on causality..

I was just answering Bitconnect's claim that Arabs were great colonizers. That's not true. The great Muslim colonizers were Persian. — frank

Cool. The Persians still had to be conquered and made it worth their while to "convert" for this to even be a thing, that's all I'm saying. I'm not sure about the picayunish point (in this debate) that indeed many Persian philosophers and centers of study eventually took shape adding to the Islamic Empire and Golden Age.

I'll back up and explain...

It seemed to me you were making an argument that "individuals" is liken to "institutional facts"- what designates this individual or that, is a choice, that may or may not become "institutional" (become part of a language community, or "way of life" or whatever you want to say in this realm of social explanation). Rather, I was countering that "individuals" are beyond simply conceptual constructs, but actual "entities" in the world, with a "real" causal history. The tricky part, is what is meant here by "causal history", but that is the matter that is my theory in question, so I can go into that more, but I just wanted to see what you were trying to assert with ideas of it being about "choosing" or and institutional facts, etc.

Not my point. Many people converted to Christianity for similar reasons. That's how these kind of religions work. In Christendom it was usually kings that converted and then came their subjects or tribal units.. But my point was it was still a conquering, militaristic force.

Ask the people conquered under Genghis Khan their thoughts versus just a generation later under the "Pax Mongolia" of the "peaceful" Mongolian Empire of Kublai Khan. You cannot just skip over stuff because it's convenient for your argument.

I'm going to need time to digest it.

John Searle gives the most complete explanation. I think I;ve already pointed you to the thread on Institutional Facts. — Banno

So how do institutional facts have to do with the idea of causality? Is causality itself now institutional? But I believe you were talking rather of my idea of the gametes... But again, whilst this is a pseudo-identity of substance (the two gametes), the reason for it is causal. That is to say, none of this need rely on the social activity of making rules for these definitions- they are very much "real" if causality is "real".. real as in, you don't need human social activity for this to be a "thing" in the universe.

I am denying objective identity and so I am denying that the developmental trajectory of an organism is deeply intwined with some objective identity. The organism is a collection of components, always changing, always in flux, taking things in from the environment, spitting things back out. There is no essential self there. — Apustimelogist

Same with other posters.. This is about causality, but causality leading to an event whereby all possibilities are the start for that individual. The event defines the parameters of the "what" which in this case is the combination of the gametes.

This is mostly bullshit, though. For the most part, the geographical development of Islam was done by Persians, and it wasn't done violently. Islam was attractive because it served as merchant law throughout Central Asia.

And there's nothing foreign about Muslim extremism. Your bigotry stinks. — frank

I think these kind of blanket statements come out of taking the opposite side. "You say that Muslims conquered violently! I say they were a delightful bunch of peaceniks that people simply couldn't resist being a part of." I mean it depends on what part of the history, in what region, the various rulers and empires. There were definitely parts that were violent. The whole reason the Middle East is Islamic is because Arabs formed a deadly army that was able to defeat the floundering empires (like the Byzantine Empire) and other smaller regions in their spread across to North Africa and Spain on one side and into almost Vienna on the other (eventually much later.. but still into Persia and Pakistan area, etc.).

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

But I think rather the essence secondary to the necessity of causality. The theory is causal, and this leads to a conclusion of an event (the combination of gametes). Once causality and what counts as possible and not possible based on prior events is part of the picture, this is not just about how language is used, which is why I asked whether you thought causality didn't exist somehow if there are no labels for it. For example, clearly "individuals" don't need to be picked out with words, or so it would seem to me. There are individual animals, etc all prior to humans designating this or that thing "an individual".

I'm wondering if the premises from causation could act as a kind of support for the implication. — Moliere

I haven't been keeping track of the thread for a bit. Basically identity through the meeting of those gametes is the outcome of the causal argument.

The causal argument is thus:

What event was it whereby all the possibilities that could have led to the person who is presently reflecting back on their lives could have obtained?

AND

Whereby if you went back any further, there would be no person who could have obtained as the person who is reflecting back on their lives, as that would not even be a possibility.

That event would be conception. Anything prior to that, could have led to outcomes that would not have been you. In fact, if one thing changed even a milisecond prior to your conception, you would not have been actualized.

However,

AFTER your conception, while it is arguable "you" might have been a "different person" due to epigenetics and experiences, we can at least say, if all events played out as they did, the actual person that is looking back in hindsight would be one of those possibilities, and in fact, is what actually happened.

Simply because if one is skeptical about a coherent ontology for identity then there is nothing for it to be potent about. All it would then be about is labelling things and keeping track of those labels. — Apustimelogist

So are you denying causality? Causality doesn't exist without a label??

At least the New Testament has the great insight that it has several Gospels, hence someone clearly understood that the written story of the life of Jesus would be extremely crucial to the whole religion, so better to have several accounts. But do Christians use the Gospels together and come to conclusions then to what really happened? Of course not! Not only would it be too confusing, but also Pontius Pilatus and his hand washing is of course center in the marketing effort in trying to convert Romans to Christianity. So pick that Gospel to teach how bad the Jews were to Christ.

And because this is a central part of the traumatic history of a Jews, Jewish satire comes into play: not only the largest religion on Earth has such anti-semitic passages in it's holy book, the second largest religion on Earth also has similar passages in it's holy book. In that case, as there's no uncertainty of Muhammad and his kingdom existing (we even still have the grave around untouched), you have case like the Jewish Banu Nabir tribe trying to assassinate Muhammad, Muhammad fighting against Jewish tribes. And of course, Muhammad trying to convert the Jews and the Jews not being so excited about this new prophet. And a lot of how bad the Jews are. — ssu

Appropriate the myths and history from the people it came from, reconfigure it to your own culture's setting (Greco-Roman notions for Christianity and Arab culture for Islam), and then kill the originators of said belief system. Maybe there's an inherent tension when you lift wholesale ideas and histories from another people and then go around telling those people how they got their own myths wrong. Very peculiar this cultural appropriation practice. This is why I'm for the original paganism. Identify with your tribal religion, syncretize with other pagan religions, live and let live, or acknowledge the tribal traditions of others, but this whole "steal the original and then kill the makers" is peculiar on many levels. Of course, if you are a "believer" in these religions, there is no way it will look this way to you. Rather, you are "improving" and providing the "correct interpretation" of the originating people's culturo-religious practice.. But again, this just comes off as telling the originators how they got their own interpretation of their own writings and traditions wrong.

I mean, ideally, I am for just not being religious at all, if one can help it. I generally categorize ancient religions into two kinds- tribal/ethnic and universal. Most religions throughout history were tribal/ethnic based. I'd say even Hinduism falls under this, despite some of the Western notions during the 60s and the Hare Krishnas. At the end of the day it relies very much on a caste system, brahmins, castes, etc. I would also say most ancient pagan religions were also largely tribal based, though there was syncretism during the Greco-Roman empire and various pantheons of mixing and matching. Ancestral worship is another common form that is localized obviously to ones ancestors. There is animism and the like, which again, is very localized. Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and a few others are "universal". They generally rose up in an age of more advanced civilizations. They tend to be more Iron Age rather than Bronze Age, let's say. These ones look to convert new people. However, Christianity and Islam are peculiar in that they rely on a substartum of the Jewish history and stories, which are largely tribal, and then need to retro-fit it as the more "correct" version of it that is universal, or at least, fits their own respective cultures when they were created. This also means that one has to be hostile to the group from which one pinched the stories from. So it's built on the fact of "replacing" the originators (supercessionism in Christianity, etc.).

That's a nice way to put it: cudgeling for ones owns justifications. You first come up with your objectives, then look for some moral reasons why your objectives are also morally good. Typical actions in our World. — ssu

Absolutely. Everyone's got their narrative, and many times, never the two shall meet, and all that.

Only under pressure will both sides cave in and the zealots lose their support. Otherwise the grievance retribution circle will just go on.

The only way I see that pressure coming against Bibi's administration is that they really fuck up with Gaza and a lot more Palestinians would be killed. Perhaps 50 000 are killed. Or perhaps 100 000? Where do we put the number when the outrage becomes too bad? Because that number is out there. When that is reached, Biden will really get the "Genocide Joe" nickname for real. And that's when the US love for Israel would falter: there is already the notable change in the attitudes of the younger generations. Yet so insane aren't even the hardliners in the Israeli government. They might perhaps hope that Palestinians in the Gaza simply walk out to Egypt, but even these Zionist zealots aren't up to any 'final solution' solutions. They might talk so, but likely do understand the consequences and not act so.

The problem is that having over two million people starving without shelter can produce a true disaster of epic proportions. That's the real threat, because Bibi isn't insane. But as we have seen, he can fuck up.

If the Warsaw Uprising is comparable to Gaza now, let's just remember that it took for the Germans 63 days and then from a smaller population of Warsaw they had killed 150 000 to 200 000 civilian and 15 000 Polish resistance fighters. Now with Gaza the war has gone longer and 21 000 civilians have died and perhaps few thousand Hamas fighters are casualties. That is bad and I do say that we could have far less destruction if the IDF would fight like the US Army in Iraq, but we aren't dealing with six digit numbers.

Then on the Palestinian side: when would the losses be so traumatic, that there wouldn't be this firm belief that Israel can be overcome through decades of war? When is it so dark, that people would be just happy to have peace and really don't give a shit about who controls the holy places in Jerusalem? In this way, the history of Europe shows just how ugly the killing has to be that people genuinely want peace and are against jingoism and religious extremism.

Hence I'm really pessimistic at everything here, because the road to real peace might be extremely ugly.

So I'm not hopeful at all. — ssu

Yep agreed. First step is getting Netanyahu out of office. At least that's a start for different leadership. Get labor party back in power. I'm not sure if that changes much on the ground, as generals also play a huge role. However, I know this isn't even a start. What is the real issue at play here is the hostages. Israel is extremely sensitive to their people being taken hostage.

Another thing to consider is, I wonder what it would take for the Gazans to hand over Hamas. Israel should provide incentives to do so perhaps. I don't know.

I think Friedman's solution makes the most sense right now to stop the fighting. Hamas hands over hostages, joins with international organization to run Gaza. Get other actors involved and keep a watchful eye.

What's sad is Hamas being so small simply angered the bear and the bear is now attacking. I'm not sure how else they thought Israel would respond, being that even just sending rockets provoked huge amounts of rockets being sent their way. If your goal is to provoke with no real end goal in mind other than "fuck you" to a powerful country next door who is not afraid to use that power, I don't know what to call that kind of reasoning. Certainly the people that they represent should rise up against them. I can see hating Israel, but their actions are totally predictable. Hamas led their people into this mess, yet their people are okay that they did this? None of this makes sense.

Before or after they stole their land? — Mikie

Cool, I had too long a conversation with folks with more historical perspective and nuance to entertain this kind of generic, college campus argument.

I did, then every Arab country should be bombing Israel, which has killed FAR more Palestinians than Hamas has killed Israelis. — Mikie

Don’t forget that Arab countries did try to destroy Israel at one point..a few times actually.

What Israel could have done is not turned Gaza into a concentration camp. The Palestinian women and children being slaughtered are victims— and you’re essentially blaming them for actions of Hamas. Again, if that’s truly the standard being used, then what Hamas did on October 7th was equally justified. Do we take that seriously? — Mikie

Just curious if it's "parity" would the Israeli government be justified in raping, beheading, and mutilating Palestinians in the exact same numbers in an unprovoked event at a time of their choosing? That would assume what Israel's mission is the same as Hamas' mission. Israel is trying to destroy both Hamas as an entity and their infrastructure. They think not doing this simply allows Hamas to rebuild and try to do this again. They have the power to do this, whilst minimizing their own casualties, try to regain their hostages, so they are doing so.

Now, I am not necessarily for this approach, but I get the idea. I would say Hamas can to step down, give up the hostages, and Israel can let them leave to Qatar or some other neutral place for the time being. But would Hamas agree to this? Okay, let's say that will be "unacceptable" for Hamas. How about more of the Thomas Friedman approach? That is to say:

It’s time for the U.S. to tell Israel to put the following offer on the table to Hamas: total Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, in return for all the Israeli hostages and a permanent cease-fire under international supervision, including U.S., NATO and Arab observers. And no exchange of Palestinians in Israeli jails. — It’s Time for the U.S. to Give Israel Some Tough Love- Thomas Friedman

I doubt Hamas would even agree to this. Anything that would mean that Hamas is accountable, and not independently running Gaza would be against their interest as chaos actor in the region on behest of themselves and other Islamist regimes. So you still have this pesky situation of a terrorist organization willing to bide their time to carry out as many attacks as they can to destroy Israel. Quite a predicament.

When I think about it deeply, I am skeptical about such coherent ontology of the individual where the causo-historico thing has any signicance beyond a kind of bookkeeping role of keeping track of things. — Apustimelogist

Why would you believe that? What about causo-history would be so impotent?

Yes, but a great deal has to happen before I exist. Why isn't the development of the heart or the brain also a point like the moment of conception? Why isn't the moment when my parents meet or marry, just as important? What about the moments when my mother and father were conceived? Aren't they also critical? It's a web.

I'm sorry if this seems outdated by what has appeared since I started writing it. — Ludwig V

So sure, all that causally does have to be in place, and I am not denying that this causal chain has to be in place. However, the terminus for which this has to take place, where otherwise you would not even be there in the first place to reflect back is the conception. Anything after that, could still be a version of you, perhaps. Anything before would not even be a version of you, but a version of someone else. It would be someone else's range of possibilities (including the actualized one there is now looking back).

Thank you for providing some historical context to this!

Did you know that the Masons, Rotary, and Lions Club are part of the Jewish conspiracy? Hamas' charter says (among other things) — BC

A lot of little league teams and little old men are going to be very disappointed with this characterization. But now that I think of it, they should be proud to be part of a conspiracy of community service, so carry on with the conspiracy!

I genuinely think that this is the most sickening, obnoxious part of the New Testament. That none of the other Gospels say anything like this, doesn't make it less important. The idea of the Jews as being Christkillers and having that 'Blood curse' is very important in Christian anti-semitism. It explains just why after the Pope instigated the Crusades, the first to be attacked were the local Jews, as there weren't so many Muslims around that time in Central Europe. Yes, the Blood curse was repudiated later by the Catholic Church and others, but that doesn't stop someone like Mel Gibson putting the crowd to chant in Aramaic the Bible verses from Mathew in his Passion of the Christ film in 2004. — ssu

:up: No doubt, you hit one of the core origins of European and general Christian antisemitism. What's ironic is if you peel back the layers of the clearly polemical aspects of the New Testament, you have a very Jewish Jesus of Nazareth who died at the hands of the Roman Imperial system. But as Pauline doctrine spread across the Mediterranean, you cannot have that connection anymore, and any good Greek scribe is going to make a passage that detaches Jesus from his own people, so as to make him sui generis. And this goes with what I said a while ago in the antisemitism thread:

The authors of the New Testament have a point of view. They need Jesus to look sui generis. You can see this "othering" of Jesus (both as in othering from his Jewish origins to othering as even a human being) by the way he is portrayed in Mark (it starts at what people actually knew about him.. his preaching years in the Galilee and being baptized and being associated with the more well-known Jewish charismatic leader at the time, John the Baptist). It then moves to Matthew which focuses on more of his mashalim (parables) and revealing more of his understanding approach to halacha (Jewish law interpretation). However, I am willing to admit, as I said, that the this is also pure propaganda by the author who knew a thing or two about Pharisee-law and placed it in the character of Jesus. But that would be dangerous, as it now re-focuses Jesus in a more Jewish context of debating the minutia of Jewish law. But then, this actually endorses the "embarrassment theory", as it would be embarrassing to have Jesus embroiled in common 1st century debates on the minutia of Jewish law. He should be busy being Othered as a Son of God who is the Logos and beyond all that stuff. Well, Matthew cuts it both ways, see, in this mythological account, he is given a Roman-style birth story, where he is the "son of a virgin" a concept foreign to Jewish Second Temple Period theological notions of messiah (or God for that matter), but very common in the pagan Greco-Roman-Near Eastern world. Luke gives us an elaborated version of this with angels and such, further putting Jesus as certainly divine, at the least something of angelic origin, leading a way for a Son of God. By John, we start getting full blown Platonic notions of the "Logos", and clearly influence from Diasporan Platonic notions (pace Philo of Alexandria). This Logos in John is still its own thing because it isn't just the Logos, an organizing principle and telos, but the "Logos made flesh", which combines Platonic AND mystery-cult aspects of a god that "dies for the (sins of?) humanity" (pace Mithra).

So this is to all to say, you have to peal back those mythological layers, to get to the "historical" figure. If you buy into Jesus "condemning the Jews", you have now bought into the Othering of Jesus from his Jewishness so that he can now become safe for non-Jews to have him as their own, so they can worship him without having to worry about that more "national/ethnic" aspect of him. Since this is a thread on antisemitism, you can see how this Othering of Jesus contributes to this, by removing the Jewishness from Jesus, as well as the humanness from being someone embroiled in the Jewish religio-political debates of his time, to being some otherworldly Christ who died for the sins of humanity. He is not Jewish, but universal and then the Othering is complete. — schopenhauer1

Still, if the aspiration is to live in their own land, hardly anyone has anything against that. What simply creates the anger is the Apartheid system, is that Israel is seen as a Western country and democracies shouldn't have apartheid systems and yes, that it is so close to US (where it's basically a domestic policy issue) get anti-American sentiment linked to this. This can be seen how much fewer calls there are for the Kurds to have their own state, even if they too have been a target of genocide, like with the Anfal campaign by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. — ssu

Well, that's also an interesting part of it. Where are the "comparable" outcries in conflicts elsewhere?

Who is morally right to own land is to me a stupid question as countries themselves are social constructs in the end. It's actually something that warmongers and imperialists ponder about and get the 'moral reasons' for 'liberation' or conquest. Those who seek moral justification for their sovereignty over a territory are usually the bad guys.

The morally good situation is where neighboring states are quite happy with their borders and those borders are open. — ssu

I think we have hit upon a foundational agreement between our views :). There is a certain arbitrariness to all of it, and thus any justification is simply that group's cudgel for their justification. But cudgel it is.

But that would mean that a Palestine would have to have it's own capable armed forces, which Israel doesn't allow. Or then there ought to be dramatically more integration on the Arab side, like the League of the Arab states being more like the EU or something similar. Then you could have Egyptian, Saudi and Iraq forces patrolling the Palestinian borders. Well, the GCC is closest to an Arab military treaty organization, and it's members nearly went to war with one members, so that doesn't look good.

And this is why, yes again, I come back to the present Israeli administration, which has done everything possible to make the Palestinian Authority as weak as possible, because their objective is to annex Judea and Samaria and to get away with it. And that's why I am very pessimistic about the future here. — ssu

Indeed, and this is where the real debate is, and I agree, this is the most important million dollar question: What of the day after the day after? What is really to rule this area and bring peace, and not just the status quo? I am hoping it is something akin to what you recommend- that a coalition of sorts, helps Palestine rebuild, and rebuild away from those who led them down the darkest nightmare path to death-cult, and to something like a developing country that has economic ties to its closest neighbor. There is literally, no other way. And yes, this takes an Israel that is open to this, one that must be radically transgressive in order to form peace with a former hostile neighbor. Something has to change in order for a long term peace. It cannot be seen as simply a hotbed for more death and destruction. If there is no end to grievance retribution, there is no end to any of it. Give up the fuckn ghost, might be the slogan then.

And I'm pointing out that what counts as an individual is nothing to do with substance, but with how we choose to use names.

You are using a screw driver as a hammer. — Banno

Can you define, "What counts"? Surely, prior to humans there are individuals, no? Individual animals, individual items? I think this is ripe for the terms "overmining" and "undermining" objects to see whereby things get misconstrued as their relations or by their nominal names, but I'd have to see where you take your skepticism.

Why folk insist on trying to make use of the anachronistic notion of substance is beyond me. — Banno

I think it captures a good shorthand for physically what is relevant to an object- its matter and form. It really hasn't been improved upon much, simply elaborated in detail. Hydrogen and Oxygen can be considered a substance, its relations in their bond can be considered their form, etc.

But, when dealing in metaphysics, you start somewhere, usually objects or processes of some sort. Sometimes people go to idealism so some mental aspect or even mathematical relations themselves. But here, I am working at getting a grounding on the metaphysics of an individual by way of thinking about it causally. At what point causally, would any change to that thing result in there never being a possibility of that person?

This is basically my argument. My only quibble would be here:

This is the point made earlier, that if schopenhauer1 decides that schopenhauer1 has by fiat some specific genetic code, then in any possible world in which someone has that genetic code, that someone is schopenhauer1; and further, if in some possible world there is a person with all the attributes of schopenhauer1, but with a different genetic code, then that is not schopenhauer1 . — Banno

Because then someone will just mention twins/clones. This is why the causal-historical aspect has to be considered as well. It would have to be this specific event (web of circumstances surrounding the combination of gametes). Perhaps, with some empirical evidence, I can reduce it to just substance as there can be differences epigenetically between twins, but even that might not quite do it because of the reliance on contingencies. Rather, both came from the same set of gametes, so there has to be a differentiation in some other aspect.

Edit: And that aspect was the causal-historical aspect of the formation of the divided set of gametes. At that, for that set of gametes, is as far back as you can go before there is no possible world with X person in it.

Yes, I see this but it seems that was is posteriori necessary trivially depends on what I happen to decide I should call something so to me it doesn't seem that interesting or have deep consequences. Can you even call that necessary?

Then it comes to the issue of deciding what is water in all possible worlds. Does that trivially mean that water in all possible worlds is identical to water in this world? Or might there be other possible worlds with water that is different in some way but still similar? It seems this is down to my decision in some ways about what I want to deem as water or not depending on what I want to ignore in possible worlds. — Apustimelogist

So an individual is even more complicated than a natural kind. A natural kind can in theory be determined just by a substance (we can even keep Aristotle's notion of 'substance' as matter/form of some kind, and in modern day, probably of a scientific determination). However, an individual on top of a substance identity, needs a causal-historical identity (THIS thing, not just a thing). So as I was answering to another poster, what is it that makes an identity necessary for an individual person?

Well, there is a causal-historical point (or points), whereby a "web of circumstances" took place of conception (we need not even have to go over every scientific concept related to this), whereby THAT individual would not have even come about in the first place, unless that web of circumstances occurred. Any change prior to this, would have changed the circumstances and thus changed the person/individual who came about as a result. THAT person who came about would have been different than the YOU who is reflecting right now.

Quite so. Not wanting to be picky, but what makes these abstractions arbitrary? Isn't it rather that the idea of natural kinds proposes a certain kind of model, but the facts (nature) undermine it. Where's the necessity? — Ludwig V

That's right. The web, not just one element in it. Given your extraordinarily rigid version of determinism, we can also say that as the causal web constantly changes and develops, any other point in time is also a point when the actualized person that it the you right now could have come to be. There is no reason to pick out any one moment in my life (or before it, or after it) as more or less important than any other.

Why do you speak of the actualized person that is the you?.... Surely the same applies to everybody else, so you would do better to say the actualized person that is <insert anyone's name> ......

By speaking of "you", you posit the person you address as a participant in the language game (or whatever other kind of practice we are engaging in). Genomes are incapable of participating in these practices. People do, and their identity as people amongst people is revealed (or perhaps created) in their participation. This is an unusual take on personal identity, but given our starting-point, it seems inevitable. — Ludwig V

So ironically, you are arguing along similar "nominalist" grounds that I am arguing regarding identity and land in the Israel/Palestine thread. That is because I wholeheartedly agree with you that personal identity is very much personally and socially constructed. It's more an existential issue than a biological issue. Or I should say, if everything human is a biological issue, it isn't in the same way that let's say the ATP cycle is biological or other cellular processes.

So, as I admitted earlier in this thread, "personal identity" should have been changed in the title, and "identity as this individual rather than another" or some other phrase or word should have been used.

So, even though I think things like identity as an ethnic group, nationality, personal beliefs, friend groups, attitudes, personality are very much dependent on social construction, can there be something "essential" to an individual on a physical basis? I think there can be, and that is the causal-historical and substance of a particular set of gametes. Now, why am I picking that, if we all agree that "personal identity" is social, and arbitrary. Can't we just pick anything as setting one apart as an individual?

And here is where I point to Kripke and the necessity of identity as there being some physical basis for an individual. Why? This is the main question I am trying to answer, and the again the answer is:

"Is there a point in causal history whereby there could be no possibility of the person reflecting back on their origins could have even existed in the first place (whatever other contingent paths they could have taken from that point)?" And my answer was, "Yes, at the point of the "web of circumstances" surrounding conception of a particular set of gametes at a causal-historical place/time (period)". BEFORE that time, the possibility of may have existed, but if anything changed, even by a microsecond, you would not have been able to actualize. Thus, it is at the point of conception that at least the opportunity for the actual you that is now reflecting, would be able to exist.

And btw the most pro-Palestine people are the Irish. Were the Irish collaborators in the Holocaust? Perhaps it's their memories of the English makes them feel towards the Palestinians more than other Europeans. — ssu

That is interesting to explore, why one identifies with one group versus another. First off, the Jews were fighting the British as much or perhaps more than any Palestinian, so there would be that solidarity. But also, even claims that Jews are the "colonizers" is questionable, being that all it takes is widening the scope of history to see that it was colonized by many peoples, all of whom recognized it as the ancient Jewish homeland, now defunct to this CONQUERING army or that- Arab/Muslim army included. Ironically, there would be no Arab invasion without the Jewish religion for which Mohammed and his growing religion drew upon for their basis. It's all relative being that identity, land, and heritage is both fixed, personal, and social. Land is also fungible, in my opinion. If "eminent domain" is a thing, whereby governments can literally take your land for public use, and you have no recourse, what of it? I was born into a society, but I didn't agree to that arrangement. It was happenstance I live with that. In other words, everyone will have the cudgel to form their defense of why they deserve this land or that land. The same goes for the British and Irish.

To me there is this weird "fixed" nature of things post-WW2, as if all other conquests, claims, and motives before WW2 were not how it is that we had the claims post-WW2. Holding on to an identity of being wronged leads to the hatreds. It gets stoked by third-parties feeding the cause. You raise a child to learn to be bitter and aggrieved and you keep adding to this, they will generally hold on to that. Not always, but most of the time.

There is a campaign away that tries to make critique of the policies of the state of Israel to be anti-Semitic hate speech. I think this simply alienates even more people, because naturally and logically it's one thing to be against some policies of a country and another to hate the people. For example, I'm against the aggressive policies of Putin, but I don't hate the Russians. Having met them, they are very nice people, extremely generous and friendly when they have guests. Above all, Russians understand how many problems they have, but they have been ruled and are ruled now with fear. Why would you hate people that are living under a dictatorship? And anyway, I'm against the generalizations to condemn such large groups as people, condemning individuals is another and a more appropriate thing. — ssu

I agree with you but I think you missed my point about what happened on the ground in Europe. Many Europeans from various countries, both willingly, and unwillingly helped the Nazi get rid of their Jewish populations (think of the Vichy French or Poland). Just as in America there is generally a sensitivity around slavery, Jim Crow, and the like because of specific events in American history, it makes various people seem that much more bigoted if they seem to ignore these things or don't recognize its severe impact in American history. I would say the same should go in many European nations in regards to how it treated its Jewish populations in the early 20th century. It wasn't that long prior that Jews had rights as equal citizen (really basically since Napoleon and the 1800s). It wasn't long before old hatreds led to more violent and racist notions. The Nazis were the culmination of this. Antisemitism wasn't created wholesale from Hitler. It goes back over a millennium, and took on industrial psychopathic proportions rather than hodgepodge pogroms or lower-level decrees of expulsion and the like. So I was just saying it looks bad to finding no sympathy with a people, that were expelled amidst your own lands, to then want to deny them even in their aspirations for their own land in what at least, historically and ancestrally, is recognized as their origin... yes, even acknowledging the Palestinian rights as well.

Uganda? That was thought too. But again, just transporting people somewhere else usually don't solve anything. Best example was Liberia: the American freed slaves made just then an elite, which later didn't have so warm relations with the "original" Africans. — ssu

Yes, this is indeed an interesting case, and I actually think this should be studied more as an interesting parallel of a people whose origin is from that general "region" (not specifically but mainly Western Africa), but are not "of" that particular land anymore. That just shows you that all of this has aspects of identity, regionality, and self-determination mixed in that isn't straightforward. The slaves to America were a COMBINATION of European colonialism AND opportunism of some tribes to get rid of their neighboring tribes and build wealth doing so. Is there any "justice" to Liberian ex-slaves claims to "return" to that general region? I'd say yes there is. It is just as justified as any other reason to have a state. You see, I don't think it's all about "who is where at this snapshot of time". What snapshot? Before the slaves were sent against their will, those people deserve a state, but the returning slaves to the continent of their origin, don't get an opportunity to form a state? Because they were too long separated? Again, that is just YOUR idea of how a state should be so self-determined. Why is THAT the one that is "morally justified", and not the idea that ex-slaves can form a state as well? Especially knowing the fact that those who were sent into slavery were done so against their will with collaborators of European and native African tribes. I mean, it's all grey area. Is England an illegal state since 1066 because of William the Conqueror? Should the Welsh and Scottish throw out their Anglo-Saxon overlords, being they conquered the original Celts of Briton in the central portion of the country so thoroughly that there's barely traces of Celtic in the English language? I mean it's all made up to some extent. And no, not everything has to be a snapshot of what countries should be like just because European nations were done holding on to their "colonies".

I think my country is a good example how the relation with Israel has changed: prior Israel was seen as a similar small nation heroically defending itself from a larger enemy (as Finland had been during the Winter War). I think that changed somewhat when Israel invaded Lebanon, a smaller nation than Israel and especially after the massacres of Shabra and Shatila, that prior image of a small heroic nation changed. Now it was the bully, the stronger dominant nation, not the one that defended itself from a larger power as in 1948 or 1967. Hence the anti-US, anti-Israeli leftist rhetoric started to win the discourse simply based on the facts that the massacres did happen. Yet Finland isn't nowhere near to Ireland in it's views about Israel. And naturally there are those Finnish Christians who think that Israel is the Holy Land and the Jews are a special people. — ssu

That makes sense. Yes, as you become more powerful, you become more criticized on how you use that power. Hamas justifies Likud's heavy-handedness, I get it. However, in counterfactual history, Hamas wasn't going to act differently. So, whatever the blame is, it's going to have to be some moderated force from both sides.

Seems to me anyone can get as precise as one wants in distinguishing things and all "natural kinds" require ignoring some kinds of details, differentiation, contextual relevance. Nothing we categorize in the world avoids arbitrary abstractions. — Apustimelogist

It just means that H2O represents more than just "H2O" perhaps. That it also represents the other things you maintain. But the point is that it becomes a posteriori necessary, which is Kripke's controversial theory. The evidence provides the necessity of identity's content, which can be changed with more evidence. So the content can change, but the link of necessity does not, with whatever it is that that content provides.

Yes. Kripke does the same thing with his "this very lectern". I don't see the difference, philosophically between THIS person and this person.
We both agree that this person is the result of various factors. But you pick out one of them - admittedly an important one - and sweep away the rest as trivial. — Ludwig V

Because it was that web of circumstances (conception) that is the point of time when the actualized person that is the you right now could have come to be in the first place, EVEN IF you could have had a range of possibilities of counterfactuals after that which led to another "version" of you. Any further back than this, there COULD NOT EVEN have been the actualized version of you now who is looking back. That is my main point.

I'm not so certain that the account of a posteriori necessity works very well for water, though. Even the water in my cup right now. This is because I tend to agree with Hume on causation -- that it is a habit of ours as creatures who look for patterns, and that tomorrow water could turn out to be something aside from what we thought it was by exploring those patterns. This is a feature of most scientific knowledge: the knowledge is always provisional, and built around technical problems of a particular group of knowledge-producers. If water is H2O, then water is necessarily H2O -- of course! But is it actually H2O? — Moliere

The gametes issue doesn't take into account the fact that I am a participant in this game; that is, I have views about what possibilities I have and what possibilities would make me a different person and what possibilities would reveal the person that I actually (in my view) am. I'm not saying that I can dictate, but I can certainly demand that my views are taken into account.
Why do you feel the need to write "YOU" instead of "you", and why do you not consider the identity of a third person - not me, not you, but him/her over there? It seems you think it makes a difference. — Ludwig V

So why I say YOU, is I am discussing the person that has actualized all the events leading to the very present. THIS person (the present you, not a counterfactual you that could have actualized differently), could not have been THIS person without certain factors. As far as the main factor that differentiates the range of possibilities that led to THIS present you from a range of possibilities that would NEVER include the YOU that is present right now, that would be the set of gametes that developed into the current YOU. That is to say, it's as far back as we can go whereby if the circumstances were different (there was a different set of gametes), there was no possible world that the current actualized YOU would have existed as YOU are right now looking back on your life.

And as far as H20 and rigid designators, I think this is more-or-less where the idea stands:

One puzzling consequence of Kripke semantics is that identities involving rigid designators are necessary. If water is H2O, then water is necessarily H2O. Since the terms 'water' and 'H2O' pick out the same object in every possible world, there is no possible world in which 'water' picks out something different from 'H2O'. Therefore, water is necessarily H2O. It is possible, of course, that we are mistaken about the chemical composition of water, but that does not affect the necessity of identities. What is not being claimed is that water is necessarily H2O, but conditionally, if water is H2O (though we may not know this, it does not change the fact if it is true), then water is necessarily H2O. — Rigid Designator

The individual molecule does not have a name or the identity "water", and so while the molar quantities of H2O form water, if we want to be technical, water is not just H2O but H2O in molar quantities at a certain temperature-pressure point. A single H2O molecule floating across space is not wet, though water is. — Moliere

Actually, this gives more understanding of the matter than if it was straightforward 1:1. That is to say, it is necessary for it to be water, but not sufficient. Certainly, without H20, it would not be water, even if various other mechanisms were in place that are involved in molecular bonds, structural relationships that are contingent to the molecular properties, and so on.

So I think you missed some conversations. I am not really talking about personal identity, though I left it in the title. Rather, I am talking about what it would take for all possibilities of specifically, you (the person reflecting back in hindsight) to obtain, INCLUDING the one in the very present, right now, without it no longer being specifically YOU but someone else. That point is conception of those particular sets of gametes, in that causal-historical space.

We are assuming that there is no such thing in these possible worlds, where exactly the same experiences and genetics are a possibility, though certainly conceivable. Even if that was the case, the fact that that not only clone, but literal, double of every aspect of you down to the millisecond, would still be taking up some causal-historical space that differs, so I think even that is immune, though I don't think it necessary to even worry about that.

You may be right that the Justices will find some procedural excuse, but they need the ruling to apply to all states - not just the specific issues with the Colorado decision. That seems tougher. — Relativist

"Trump" is the brand that caters to the Christian ideologues and plutocrats whose perks the conservative justices enjoy. — Fooloso4

I'm just completely cynical as to how principled people are, even on the bench. Clarence Thomas had to recuse himself, that is how close this goes to the justices themselves. If you don't think they are not influenced by favoritism, you haven't gotten to the depths of pessimism that is needed to wade through the modern political landscape.

Originalism I believe is as was stated here:

"Originalism" is a term used to disguise the indeterminacy of legal interpretation by appearing to give it a solid foundation. It is a slogan that does not match practice. One need look no further than Scalia's decision on the second amendment. — Fooloso4

They're originalists when convenient. — Relativist

The Supreme Court, having a few justices appointed by Trump, is going to throw it out based on some procedural thing or what not and not even make a ruling on it, when they do. Certainly, they won't try to admit it was sedition. They'll say something like "officer" or "office" doesn't apply to the President. That's my prediction. Perhaps I'll be surprised, but I doubt it.

He did get on Twitter and told them to be peaceful and go home, to respect law enforcement, etc. — NOS4A2

You mean THREE HOURS after the protestors started breaking into the Capitol??

What do you even call this, if it is coupled with everything else? If you don't even believe in the fairness of the system you are running in, and thus even if you lose, you ADMIT that it can never be otherwise, otherwise the system is rigged, and then you actively call for violent rallies near the capitol, and actively have rhetoric about stopping the count, and then not stop rally-goers from getting out of control, part-and-parcel of the same thing? I don't get how there's even a doubt really.

Surely it does matter because you’re trying to conflate two different crimes and laws. — NOS4A2

It’s all interpretation but how is a sitting president encouraging protests and then not doing anything about it when they get violent and storm the capitol, not in that definition? Also, why don’t you find the video clips where Trump said if he loses, he will have lost unfairly BEFORE the elections even took place? That means he didn’t even agree to the election as a real thing to begin with!

Well, no, the constitution doesn’t mention sedition nor seditious conspiracy. — NOS4A2

Also seditious speech has been ruled as non protected speech, besides the 14th amendment clause:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. — US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Clause 3

I don't think that people question the existence or the right for the existence of Israel. Hence I agree with Benkei: a bit of a strawman. But if the Jewish had backing for an Israeli state from the Balfour declaration to the Holocaust and the successful Zionist movement, you do have also a lot to backing to the Palestinian aspirations here. — ssu

I'm addressing an issue that is closer to home to you, actually. No doubt, the issue is thorny with Palestinians and Israelis living together in mutually beneficial societies that identify with their respective cultures without intervening in each other's cultural/political affairs (of course security being a different and trickier matter). Maybe there could even be a confederation of sorts. There are plenty of people that can make plans of all sorts. We all agree on this forum at least that Bibi-ism obviously won't get us closer there. I am actually more on board with Friedman, if I try to assess my own views of the matter. Or at least, I take his general attitude towards the situation, despite what looks like "Ra Ra, everything Israel does must be always right". Rather, my defense is a product of this forum being so un-even-handed against the Israeli side, that it is laughable if it wasn't so apparent. But the thing is, I do think it is a bit odd that countries that were directly involved in the displacement of European Jewry, who were occupied by Germany or became collaborators with them, and who willingly and unwillingly assisted the Nazi cause, would be so callously anti-Israel. As far as optics, it looks like they cannot catch a break from certain countries in Europe/Europeans. As if, now that you decimated and expelled the populations so utterly, and now that they are gone from your presence more or less, the Arabs can finish the job. I am not saying that is what people actually believe, but it sure doesn't look good either. And let us not forget, Israel isn't just about "European Jewry". Because, unlike the nebulous way the "Nakba" happened (some forced, some moved and couldn't come back during an armed conflict, etc.) there were ACTUAL real expulsion of Jews from Arab countries that were there for hundreds, if not thousands of years- prior to any Arab conquest even. Around 850,000 Arab Jewish populations were forced to leave. And UNLIKE many Arab countries that USE the Palestinians, the Israeli population took them in gladly.

The point of Israel was to be one place in the world where you couldn't f*ck with them anymore. I don't blame them, given the circumstances. I do sort of blame European anti-Israeli sentiment in the way that being so forcefully against Israel- and not just in the current Bibi-ism, but throughout its history, seems just more of that same old antisemetic attitudes, just now dressed up and allowable in a different form.

Now, certainly this could be attributed to general "Leftism". And this is where useful idiots come into play. Certainly, I don't see you as a "useful idiot". However, for example, this town hall meeting in Long Beach, California (not shocking I know) comes to mind with the mindlessness that it can take:

https://x.com/yaelbt/status/1737857686933283294?s=20

Territorial annexations by force aren't tolerated in a World made of sovereign states. This is something quite universal today and the UN is quite consistent in this. Hence we talk about occupied territories and the maps used everywhere else than in Israel are different from the maps used there. This gives an obvious legal argument for the Palestinians. And as I stated above, with the exception of the Golan Heights, claims to West Bank and Gaza are between Israel and the Palestinians. — ssu

Right, well this all came about from European colonialism. Being that you are a student of history, did you ever wonder if the borders set by European powers are itself a form of colonialism? Conflict is terrible, but conflict in territories where peoples claim to have claim to have land are not going to be neatly contained because Europe had an idea about their former colonies after WW2.

Yeah. My only purpose here was to try to make the nuance clear. — Banno

:up: cool.