American audiences on mainstream TV are odd and seem to laugh when they think they're supposed to, regardless of content. I remember watching a Letterman episode where the actor who plays Kramer in Seinfeld came on to apologise for calling members of his audience the N word. The audience at the show couldn't get around the fact they were not watching comedy and thought they were supposed to laugh and kept doing so until they were literally told to stop. Odd. — Baden

Eh, Maher is okay. He is particularly hung up on people laughing at his jokes. I just happen to agree with him. He generally has many viewpoints on his show from conservative and liberal. I rather like it if everyone goes away feeling a bit annoyed because it means various sides were represented rather than blowing smoke up your ass for your side only. Many American shows are just reaffirming their side. That goes for "comedic" news / political commentary shows or "regular" news.

I like John Oliver's political commentary too, but he's way far to the left, and doesn't have a panel of people on his show, JUST his view, which is okay if you like that thing.

It's totally made up if he means as he seems to we had the entire island and then the British took N. Ireland (our tip). That's not at all what happened. — Baden

He's summarizing in perfunctory way in 8 minute segment. I am not saying it's impressive, just his points are correct, whether it's an impressive 2 hour in depth conversation about the nuances of British settlement in Northern Ireland or not. Indeed, did it not start under Queen Elizabeth sending colonists in the 1500s? Ironically, most of the settlers were fellow Celts, but of Scottish background. Presbyterians rather than Anglicans. But not native Irishman / Catholics.

What about a possible world where the only thing that was different was that George 1 came from gamete 2 instead of gamete 1, which just happen to be "twin" gametes. Everything else in that world is identical. — Apustimelogist

Then the casual-spatial aspect still remains, just like the regular twin scenario.

Think of it this way:

For "natural kinds", the necessary component can just be the substance.

For individuals, the necessary component is the substance AND the causal-historical-spatial aspect of that individual.

I can meet you in the middle and give you a transcript :wink:

0:00
-(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING) -And finally, New Rule.
0:02
I know, it's supposed to be that magical time of year,
0:04
but maybe, what we all really need
0:06
right now, is a good dose of realism.
0:08
I see a lot of nativity scenes when I'm out,
0:10
as you always do before Christmas.
0:12
And I can't help thinking
0:13
about where that manger really is.
0:16
It's in the West Bank on Palestinian land,
0:19
controlled by the Palestinian authority.
0:22
In 1950, the little town of Bethlehem
0:24
was 86 percent Christian, now it's overwhelmingly Muslim.
0:29
And that's my point tonight, things change.
0:32
To 2.3 billion Christians, there can be no more sacred site
0:36
than where their Savior was born but they don't have it anymore.
0:39
And yet, no Crusader Army has geared up to take it back.
0:42
Things change. Countries, boundaries, empires.
0:46
Palestine was under the Ottoman Empire
0:49
for 400 years, but today, an ottoman is something
0:51
you put under your feet.
0:53
-(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING) -(CLEARS THROAT)
1:01
The city of Byzantium
1:03
became the city of Constantinople,
1:05
became Istanbul. Not everybody liked it,
1:08
but you can't keep arguing the call forever.
1:11
The Irish had the entire island to themselves,
1:14
but the British were starting an Empire,
1:16
and well, the Irish lost their tip.
1:18
-(SMACKS LIPS) -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)
1:21
-They, uh... -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, CHEERING)
1:28
They blew each other up over it for 30 years,
1:31
but eventually everybody comes to an accommodation,
1:34
except the Palestinians.
1:37
Was it unjust
1:38
that even a single Arab family was forced to move
1:41
upon the founding of the Jewish state? Yes.
1:44
But it's also not rare.
1:45
Happening all through history, all over the world,
1:48
and mostly what people do is make the best of it.
1:51
After World War II, 12 million ethnic Germans
1:54
got shoved out of Russia, and Poland, and Czechoslovakia
1:57
because being German had become kind of unpopular.
2:00
(AUDIENCE LAUGHING)
2:02
A million Greeks were shoved out of Turkey in 1923,
2:05
a million Ghanaians out of Nigeria in 1983,
2:08
almost a million French out of Algeria in 1962,
2:12
nearly a million Syrian refugees moved to Germany
2:15
eight years ago. Was that a perfect fit?
2:19
And no one knows more about being pushed off land...
2:21
(SCOFFS) ...than the Jews.
2:22
Including being almost wholly kicked out
2:25
of every Arab country they once lived in.
2:29
-Yes, TikTok fans. Ethnic-- -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING)
2:34
Ethnic cleansing happened both ways.
2:37
In Fiddler on the Roof, the family is always moving
2:40
to stay one step ahead of the Cossacks,
2:42
but they deal with it.
2:43
When they're leaving Anatevka, they say,
2:45
"Hey, it wasn't so great anyway."
2:48
(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)
2:53
(CHUCKLES)
2:57
"Come on. Like other countries don't have roofs
3:00
-you could fiddle on." -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING)
3:02
-(CHUCKLES) -BILL MAHER: Now...
3:06
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
3:09
Now, that's not how they really felt,
3:11
but they were coping. They coped.
3:14
Because sometimes, that's all you can do.
3:16
History is brutal and humans are not good people.
3:20
History is sad and full of wrongs,
3:22
but you can't make them unhappen
3:24
because a paraglider isn't a time machine.
3:27
People get moved, and yes, colonized.
3:30
Nobody was a bigger colonizer than the Muslim army
3:33
that swept out of the Arabian Desert
3:35
and took over much of the world in a single century.
3:38
And they didn't do it by asking.
3:40
There's a reason Saudi Arabia's flag is a sword.
3:43
Kosovo was the cradle of Christian Serbia,
3:46
then it became Muslim.
3:48
They fought a war about it in the '90s, but stopped.
3:52
They didn't keep it going for 75 years.
3:55
There were deals on the table
3:56
to share the land called Palestine.
3:59
In 1947, '93, '95, '98,
4:04
2000, 2008.
4:06
And East Jerusalem could have been the capital
4:08
of a Palestinian state that today might look
4:12
more like Dubai than Gaza.
4:15
Arafat was offered 95 percent of the West Bank,
4:18
and said no.
4:20
The Palestinian people should know, your leaders
4:23
and the useful idiots on college campuses
4:25
who are their allies are not doing you any favors
4:29
by keeping alive "The River to the Sea" myth.
4:32
I mean where do you think Israel is going?
4:35
-Spoiler alert, nowhere. -(AUDIENCE CHEERING, APPLAUDING)
4:46
It's one of the most powerful countries in the world
4:48
with the 500-billion-dollar economy,
4:51
the world's second largest tech sector
4:53
after Silicon Valley, and nuclear weapons.
4:56
They're here, they like their bagel
4:58
-with a shmear, get used to it. -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)
5:08
What's happening to Palestinians today is horrible,
5:11
and not just in Gaza, in the West Bank too.
5:14
But wars end with negotiation
5:16
and what the media glosses over is--
5:18
It's hard to negotiate
5:19
when the other side's bargaining position
5:21
is you all die and disappear.
5:24
(SCOFFS) I mean, the chant "From the River to the Sea."
5:27
Yeah, let's look at the map.
5:29
Here's the river, here's the sea.
5:32
Oh, I see, it means you get all of it.
5:34
Not just the West Bank
5:36
which was basically the original UN partition deal you rejected
5:39
because you wanted all of it and always have.
5:42
Even though, it's indisputably
5:44
also the Jews' ancestral homeland.
5:46
And so, you attacked and lost. And attacked again and lost.
5:52
And attacked again and lost.
5:55
As my friend, Dr. Phil says, "How's that working for you?"
5:58
(AUDIENCE CHEERING, APPLAUDING)
6:07
Look at what Mexico used to own.
6:10
All the way up to the top of California,
6:12
but no Mexican is out there chanting,
6:14
"From the Rio Grande to Portland, Oregon."
6:16
(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)
6:26
Because they chose a different path.
6:28
They got real and built a country
6:30
that's the world's 14th biggest economy now.
6:33
Because they knew the United States
6:36
wasn't going to give back Phoenix,
6:38
any more than Hamas will ever be in Tel Aviv.
6:41
-(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING) -One of...
6:43
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
6:48
One of the leaders of Hamas says...
6:59
(SCOFFS) I'm sorry, who's the one
7:01
with imaginary dreams?
7:03
If I give you the benefit of the doubt and say your plan
7:06
for a completely Jew-less Palestine
7:08
isn't that all the Jews should die.
7:10
(SMACKS LIPS) What is the only other option?
7:14
They move. You move all the Jews.
7:17
(SCOFFS) Okay, I got to warn you,
7:18
there's gonna be some kvetching.
7:20
(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)
7:23
(SCOFFS)
7:28
You move all the Jews and we do this with what?
7:31
A fleet of trucks called Jew-haul.
7:33
(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)
7:41
And to where are we moving this entire country? Texas?
7:45
-(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -Sure, they have room
7:49
and I guess we could put the Wailing Wall on the border
7:51
and kill two birds with one stone.
7:53
-(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING) -Or we could just get serious.

I meant to add @ssu
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/863275

Don't know why you're tagging me. I'm not going to waste my time on this guy. Maher is boring, conventional, and not too sharp. The comedians I like are mostly dead, unfortunately. — Baden

Too bad, being he makes great points there... And it's only 8 minutes!

@Baden @Merkwurdichliebe @RogueAI
I saw that one! Very good one. Let me help you out:

Well in the the gamete example, it is about a world where that person was not born as opposed to a world where some property of the person has been changed. — Apustimelogist

Yes. I don't think that's refuting my point. It is getting at where it is that is necessary for that object to have been the person now reflecting back on his life. Prior to that, there wouldn't even be a person reflecting back to even talk about. Hence Ryle uses the term as "indeterminate", as opposed to in hindsight after the event has taken place. When you bring two compounds together that can combine and form a new compound, it is not until the compound is actually combined that we can now start talking about the new compound as an actualized thing and not just a possibility.

In fact, we don't even know that there needs to be the possibility for the possibility to exist. If Jane and Joe have sex 2 minutes earlier, they end up with George 1, if they had sex 2 minutes later, they end up with George 2. Prior to this, George may have never existed at all. George 1 and George 2 are not transposable. One would not be the other. Hence when reflecting back one his life, George 1 can fathom what it would be like to be George 2, but in no way would George 1 ever actually be George 2, let alone under ANY other circumstance that would have changed that particular set of gametes.

Here is the individual, this individual has the name Moliere, and this individual with the name Moliere at the time of conception had this set of base pairs, and this set of base pairs was necessary for this individual as stipulated by the use of rigid designation. This person necessarily had such-and-such a base sequence at a particular time -- I can grant that, and don't think our imagined scenarios define what actually happened in the past.

But I'm wondering if it's side-stepping some real point of contention :D -- like causality and genes and personality, and how those combine, or some such. Perhaps we just have different notions of what's plausible here, for instance? — Moliere

I think it's simply the notion of accepting that the gametes are necessary at a certain causal-historical point in time for that person to be that person, but not sufficient. Prior to that event, if you referred to "George", George could be any set of possibilities. After that event, George was that set of gametes and no other.

No, his main target was the descriptive theory of proper names and reference generally. — Banno

Yes.

The causal theory of reference was only mentioned briefly towards the end of the book as an alternative, pretty much just to show that there were other possibilities besides descriptions. There are others who have tried to make the idea work. For my part I don't see why there should be only one explanation for how reference works. — Banno

Okay, makes sense. And goes along with my impulse to expand it...

I don't know how to follow that. We can say that schopenhauer might have had different genetics to that which he actually has, and that is a truth about schopenhauer. We might not so clearly say that this person might have had different genetics, depending on considerations of de dicto and de re interpretations. Notice that it is specified here that in some possible world, schopenhauer, that very individual, has different genetics. There is no chance here of schopenhauer being someone else. — Banno

You seem to be agreeing? Yes, there is no world in which schopenhauer, the object/person could have been someone else at the point of the combination of gametes.

There is a point of differentiation of the object as separated from other objects, that is the point of differentiation.

That's pretty loose. No, it's not an essence. The causal theory was more a throw-away alternative explanation, never fully worked out by Kripke. — Banno

The causal dubbing by way of causality is "throw-away" and not a part of his theory? Interesting. I thought that was one of his main theories that came out of it. It seems to be the one that people offer when discussing how the whole "rigid designation" of a proper name works.

No, they don't. That's rather the point. Pick any property you like, you can designate a possible world in which that very individual does not have that property. — Banno

But that's my point about the gametes. That is the point where that very individual cannot be that very individual anymore. Then it is back to being open to simply "a possibility of some individual".

Stop there and you are pretty much right. — Banno

Being rid of essence is somewhat to the point. That's what rigid designation does, avoids the "picking out". — Banno

Now you have thoroughly confused me. In Naming and Necessity, it's basically about just that. You name an individual thing (a proper name/ demonstrative that), that becomes rigidly designated through causal act of dubbing. That causal dubbing IS the "essence".

And so yeah...

You seem to be working with some form of counterpart theory, which has it's own set of problems. — Banno

My point is that, similar to the notion of natural types, even individuals have an essential "property" (substance I said) about them. Both need to be there. It's not that the "causality alone" (Kripke) is wrong, it's just that it seems that it is incomplete. That, there is also the matter of "what" is being dubbed. I don't see it as, "Causality thusly negates substance theories of essence". Why should that be so? Because the question is thorny, and thus anything that shortcuts the thorny issue is where we should stop our inquiry into what makes an object an object?

One of the logicians will probably correct this, and doubtless it is formally wrong, but speaking roughly an individual is referred to by an individual constant, {a,b,c...}. A type is a grouping of individuals. The difference between types and sets is that types are hierarchic in such a way that a type cannot be a member of itself, avoiding Russell's paradox. — Banno

So the stuff in this glass - note the demonstrative, picking out an individual - is water - a type. So that individual belongs to the type "water" — Banno

An individual is not defined by being "a combination of substances". — Banno

Why can a substance not be this "individual constant"? If not that, "what" is the individual constant? Just any old thing that is designated so at a point in time? There are no characteristic essences of the thing being designated (demonstrably, let's say by denoting that), that would pick it out versus another thing?

Water is a kind, not an individual. The logic is a bit different. A closer example would be the Lectern used in Identity and Necessity. There i tis used with the demonstrative: this lectern. Kripke chose not to use that example in Naming and Necessity. But I wonder if the lack of clarity here is what led Kripke to drop the example. — Banno

So this always bothered me.. Why would a kind be different than an individual in terms of substance that it is identified with? I will try to answer this in my own way that makes sense to me...

Where a kind is JUST identified with a substance, an individual is a combination of substance (this set of X matter/form/properties), AND a causal-temporally instantiated point in origin. At THIS point, this individual came into being with that X matter/form/properties. So it is actually combining the substance and causality approach to necessity.

Can you give me the post? I just got the mention.

What is being argued? Are arguing whether Western societies are "superior"? And can we switch out "societies" with "values"? Can we also throw in there, that "Western" leaders can also discard those values just as easily as anyone else?

What is the argument now?

Water is a bit different from identity because we can speak of a chemical's identity, but I don't think that's an existential identity like I allude to above. But I think I'd say that if water in Bizarro-world was primarily comprised of H3O and still was the stuff we drink when thirsty and more or less did all the same things which water does then I'd say it's the same stuff, even though in Bizarro-world the description differs -- but this wouldn't be on the basis of it caring. I think at a certain level "water" is such a clearly human interest that it's strange to think that this interest must have a corresponding descriptive correlate to it. Rather I think we're really interested in water because it's connected to our being alive, and so we investigate water and see what it is we can see about it. Here our name is much more in a functional space -- it's what it does for us rather than what we've come to describe it as which we're picking out. — Moliere

Here is an interesting passage from Wiki on rigid designators:

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. — Wiki Article

So, I think I am in alignment with this, but with some additions. YOU is rigidly designated with the specific set of gametes for you to be you and not something else. This is true in all possible worlds. There is no world in which a different set of gametes would be you. That is all my claim is saying. If I was making a claim that those set of gametes are necessary and sufficient, then you can say that I am missing some things. Indeed, personhood can be quite existential in terms of how we identify things. However, we cannot lose sight of the necessary components that have to be in place for you to have been you and not something else.

This leads then to the idea of overmining and undermining. I can conceive of an argument whereby the interlocutor then states, "Well, why stop at the gametes? Why not your parents, the temperature in the room when you were conceived, the millisecond decision before or after? Those relations are also part of you!" And here is where Harman's notion of overmining becomes useful. We overlook a specific object to see all relations that could be connected to it. However, what makes that object, the object, needs to be understood. Now, Harman might also agree with you, that the necessary components can never be fully known, as they are "hidden" behind their causal influences. I can agree with even this, yet still insist that a well-known necessary aspect of what makes a person THIS person (and not something else) is the causal-temporal point at which the two gamete components combined.

How about saying that you’re against Israel’s concentration camp? — Mikie

Nah, I am not buying to that rhetoric, and I told you the reasons in the last post.

Yes, we know that killing THOUSANDS of children and killing DOZENS of children is indeed a difference. — Mikie

I am for them being more targeted. I said as such. What else can I say? I want Netanyahu gone. I want a moderate approach to their war in Gaza.

If we buy into the nonsense that it’s been the Palestinians refusing peace all these years, would this justify supporting the apartheid state that establishes concentration camps? — Mikie

It wouldn't "justify" it, but it would explain it, and put less of that onus on "That is Israel's failure" and instead of giving no agency or responsibility to Pals (who had a shaky history of moderation in negotiations if any).

I don’t think Israel citizens should be killed or punished for having an extreme right wing government— do you agree? If so, we should also agree that the Palestinian people should not be killed or punished for their government’s actions. — Mikie

I think Israel's rightwing government should call for a vote of no-confidence and Likud should lose. But if Netanyahu had the army do to Palestinians what Hamas did, I would say that it should be dismantled. I don't think bulldozing homes or all the articles you want to send my way amount to what Hamas did, so you can save the copy-pastes. We know the difference.

The UN represents world opinion, you know, the whole world. — Baden

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, if you think that is "the opinion" you are crazy. The UN lost the thread of this conflict right at the beginning. They are nothing but a complaint forum. The humanitarian branches are the main use of it. As for the "political" aspect. It legitimizes all sorts of crazy opinions, and whatever it represents, it isn't "the truth", "objectivity", or even "the world". It has no power, and whatever it was, it's function has ceased to be useful from the start. Is it useful for countries to "decry" American hegemony as they defund their own militaries, sure.

No, you don't get to dismiss the entire world (which have condemned Hamas btw.) because you don't like what they have to say — Baden

Nah, you don't get to call the UN as representative of "the World" either, so we can agree to disagree. The UN is sidelined in practice, and in principle it has become what I said above- a sounding board against US interests mainly. Okie dokie.. Great forum. What comes out of it? Nothing. Rhetoric. Talk. Ways for people in a philosophy forum to point to something else to make it seem their point must be objectively correct.

Of course it was legitimate. Germany was one of the most powerful militaries in the world and could easily have defeated and subjugated Britain. It's mind boggling that you think you are making any kind of relevant point here. — Baden

I don't give a shit about your rhetoric of "mind-boggling"- adds nothing to the case. What is relevant is that sometimes civilian deaths are a tragic part of warfare. It should be minimized as much as possible agree, but it will happen, even in legitimate conflicts. Germany thought they were right too. Tell a die hard Nazi that they shouldn't rule Britain, they would disagree. We can all say, that it is mind-boggingly ridiculous. But that only worked itself out when there was a large bloody conflict where the Allies had to kill a lot of civilians in Germany.

What's insane is that you on the one hand claim to be against killing civilians but think my idea that Israel stop killing massive amounts of civilians is insane. — Baden

Which is why I brought up WW2 and Britain fighting German and not being only defensive. Was that legitimate, yes or no? As I stated previously:

Also, a tangential but Irish-related question. Strategically, Ireland didn't enter WW2 because they were not fans of Britain and remained somewhat neutral (with some help at various times to Allies). Was that the right decision simply because Ireland's hands were "clean" of being involved in a war? If Britain remained defensive only and did not attack German positions, would they have been the "better" for it?

I'm just trying to get the scope of your notion of legitimacy in conflict. I am also testing to see if you are using various historical scenarios when it suits your argument and then retreating when they don't. It will just be a game of "That was different!" on both sides, you see. — schopenhauer1

What's insane is that you on the one hand claim to be against killing civilians but think my idea that Israel stop killing massive amounts of civilians is insane. The other stuff you wrote is a frankly idiotic strawman. Are the only two choices you can think of here 1) destroy an entire city of 1.5 million people committing multiple war crimes in the process 2) invite your enemy for a handshake and a side eye? Did I any where suggest those were the only two options. Or have you decided to join the kindergartners again? You get one more chance and then you don't get any more of my time., — Baden

Again, in theory, if Hamas can stand down without any civilian casualties, obviously, that is the best option. What is the options in between? What Israel is not going to do have the UN involved, and I don't blame them based on the fact that they can't even condemn various Hamas activities. So if we take the UN off the table as not representing a fair "objective" body for both sides, I would say the best option is to make the war more targeted. I'd say Biden's notion of limited warfare (though he's not holding them to it), is so far the most moral. Not causing massive death is indeed a good goal and I'd agree with that.

But the point won't be illluminated by quibbles over divergences in the tactics of the IRA and Hamas or their ideologies. — Baden

I actually think it does.. and there is a fundamental difference. If IRA continually bombed over and over the hell out of any street corner, bus station or whatnot of British targets, you might have had a much bloodier conflict than "The Troubles".

It's the cultural, racial, and geographical closeness of Britain and Ireland and the political sway of Ireland in the U.S. that made it impossible for the British to use massive indiscriminate force and collective punishment against the Irish. That is what dictated they be civilized. Whether, for example, the IRA would have ever stood down is irrelevant to this dynamic. — Baden

I think the overall bloodshed represented was just less in the kind of operations and who was being targeted in Britain. Fundamentally speaking, the IRA, though bloody, was closer to Western European historical uses of violence, even if terroristic. It was not quite "Jihadist" and as nihilistic as suicide bombings targeted at maximum kills.

So we need to wake up, be honest with ourselves, and recognize that the current level of destruction of the Palestinian population, including civilian life and infrastructure, is an option (for we "civilized" Westerners) not simply due to the nature of Hamas but because the Palestinians are poor and lacking powerful allies and because they diverge from us ethnically and culturally, so they can more easily be dismissed as expendable. Hanover's speech on the superiority of all things Western illustrates this well. Of course, what's really uncivilized is this othering that sets ethical arguments on different planes according to such an artificial, albeit convenient (for us), dichotomy. — Baden

In theory, I agree. If Israel can make Hamas stand down and not kill civilians, that would make total sense. After what they did, and so close to it, the fact that you think Hamas should just be invited for a handshake and a side-eye and what, a "noogie", "Eh, you got us!.. You guys..", that's just insane to me. Hell, even if their aims were 1967 borders (which it is not), they pretty much want Jews off that land unless they control it, and then, I doubt it would be a good day for Jews who lived there if they legitimately had some control of the region.

Ireland stayed neutral for political not moral reason. I'm not sure what the moral thing to do was given the information available at the time and Ireland's military weakness. But the mere fact that I'm Irish makes zero difference to how I would analyse it. — Baden

Right. I agree, it was mainly because of Britain. But it was convenient that Britain was the one fighting (takes the load of Ireland). But if Britain lost, what then, was it not worth fighting? Would a Nazi controlled Britain have been better?

A pretty sure goal when you are the sole nuclear power in the Middle East with likely a working nuclear triad deterrence, a superior armed forces compared even to all neighbors combined. Addition to all that, then you are backed by the sole Superpower that funds your defense spending and will rush to your aid.

Oh, how close it is that Israel would perish! — ssu

I meant the goal of Israel as a nation. One of it's founding principles.

Again an argument for the inferiority of Palestinians compared to the 'new comers'?

Jewish culture endured even when there was no Israel around. — ssu

Indeed. But it does get into the differences at stake here. Jewish identity has tried to have been stamped out. One region was very close to Finland that tried to do this actually. Finland joined along for the ride, right? Had to preserve itself as well....

I dunno why am I an Irish American who finds the Hawaiian culture to be the one of the most noble life affirming culture in the modern world? (Hawaiian culture is vastly different than American culture btw) — Vaskane

I don't know. This seems tangential to any point. Indeed, Native Hawaiians feel an affinity to Hawaii and not let's say Zimbabwe.

Sure — saying the Nazis “up and did this” to the Jews is equally misleading and shortsighted, I suppose? — Mikie

So is that the same? When the Allies were bombing Germany, did they just "up and do that to the Germans"? I would argue that is the analogy.

But if I were to scale it back, if two tribes are fighting each other and one tribe says that it wants to stand down and recognize the other but the other has to give up some things, and the other refuses, what of it? Who is in the right there? Take out the names and it just looks like who is willing to compromise and who isn't. I already showed my hand and said that because Netanyahu didn't compromise, he delegitimizes things for Israel, but in the past, they were the more willing actor and thus should be seen in that light as there has been almost zero of this from the Pals side. At some point, your notion of legitimacy cannot be mined continually from grievance, especially when you in the position of having "lost" every war (1948, 1967, 1973, 1982, etc. etc.).

Yes, there’s a long sequence of events that led to this monstrosity, which is true for literally everything. To the show up and declare how “shortsighted” it is to believe it’s unlike any other event in the world is…incredible. — Mikie

But I can just say that about what you are saying, and add in a bit of indignation and attitude with it to make it seem more legitimate in what I am arguing.

Modern Zionism started as a method to overcome Judaic tradition which leads to Self-Hate as Lessing details it. — Vaskane

Cool, could that be said of any nationalism? I mean, why are the "Irish" associated with "Ireland" and not, say, Africa? We all came from Africa no? Why do the Jews identify Israel as their homeland, and not Rwanda or South Africa, or Tanzania? Why does nationalism itself exist? I mean you could be making a case for globalized communism, or globalized Star Trek Federation of Earth or whatnot, where we are all just a unitary government. As it stands, we live in a Westphalian world of nation-states post-WW2 created by the Western European notions of things in relation to post-colonialism.

Israel couldn't be a democracy, if they actually accepted the Palestinians in it would mean the Jews would be out numbered and thus Israel would be democratically dismantled. — Vaskane

Each one wants to border off the other so that they can maintain political control of the region, hence the need for two states and not a unitary one. The populations are too different. Israel's main goal is to preserve their identity and not have it wiped out. Palestine wants to maintain their identity, but functionally speaking, if there was no Palestine, the culture that Palestine represents (Arab Muslim, roughly.. a subset one can say of the southern Syrian province of the old Ottoman Empire if one wants to find a historical precedent), would be intact in a vast swath of the region of the Middle East.

Invasive force? So the concentration camp we call the Gaza strip — that’s the “invasive force”? — Mikie

Indeed, I dislike Netanyahu and one of the main reasons is he actually delegitimizes any military actions because everything he did prior to that was done out of "bad faith" when it came to trying to broker a peace deal. However, as I see the conflict, there has only been one side over the long-term that has made overtures for peace so that Gaza and the West Bank (in some compromise) would be a country next to Israel that could have its own territory. That would mean dropping the desire for exact restitution of the past "catastrophe". That's what it means to be a two-state solution. Anyways, that notion that Israel just all up and did this to the Palestinians and like it hasn't been a succession of events, is misleading and shortsighted.

What they did instead was to open unpublicized background communication channels with the group and appeal to more moderate elements in the nationalist community to get the IRA to stop. — Baden

Just curious. Do you think that despite the terror nature of the groups, there is a fundamental difference in Hamas versus the IRA, mainly concerning the intensity of actions the points at which they would stand down versus perpetually continue, and thus the circumstances aren't apples to apples?

Also, a tangential but Irish-related question. Strategically, Ireland didn't enter WW2 because they were not fans of Britain and remained somewhat neutral (with some help at various times to Allies). Was that the right decision simply because Ireland's hands were "clean" of being involved in a war? If Britain remained defensive only and did not attack German positions, would they have been the "better" for it?

I'm just trying to get the scope of your notion of legitimacy in conflict. I am also testing to see if you are using various historical scenarios when it suits your argument and then retreating when they don't. It will just be a game of "That was different!" on both sides, you see.

In some sense my name rigidly picks me out, and it would be true that the particular me could not, under any circumstances, be made out of ice from the Thames. But that's the name, and not the unique and particular description of my genetic code at the time of my conception. And for that it seems that DNA doesn't behave in a necessary relationship to the name that picks me out: rigid designators aren't ruled by causal patterns, but rather are just how we use names. — Moliere

I know you’re trying to get some sort of rigid designation to work out here with your conception, but “what” object is the rigid designator rigidly designated with? You might be tempted to say that it can be anything or it’s functional, but there are certain physical substances that differentiate one object from all the other objects, there is a point at which an object could no longer be that object. There is a point when water is not water for example (it’s not H20). With natural kinds, for example, it is not simply that an object is dubbed in a causal chain, but also that it is made of that particular substance.

This story has been used for a long time to justify antinatalist arguments that refute consequential reasons for procreation that too easily dismiss the suffering of some for the many.

The temporal parts aren't strictly identical to each other because the history builds over time (thus accounting for your changes over time), but collectively- the entire temporal, causal chain precisely defines the "something".

Identity of indiscernibles applies to each object at time t: all the properties the object has at time t are essential to being that object at time t. It also applies to the entire chain: only one individual can possibly correspond to the set of all those temporal parts. — Relativist

So even if I was to agree with this (which I don't think I do), the whole course of the causal-temporal chain starts somewhere. It doesn't start at the Big Bang. It doesn't start at your grandfather's birth. It started at the point when there was the set of possibilities that is the YOU now reflecting back, was put into play. Without that set of gametes, whatever object 1, 2, 3.. is would not be YOU, but another set.

And it is this that does touch on the point of overmining. As to overreach beyond the physical components to simply all causal relations, is to miss an essential component to the sweep of this set of causal-temporal events, the one thing that makes this set of causal-temporal events differentiated from others.

Thanks for the interesting article, but I don't see a direct relation to the notion of individual identity, and it persistence over time. The issues here are not valuation, but how to precisely define what constitutes a persisting identity. I lean toward hyperessentialism and perdurance, and I don't think these conflict with valuations of objects. — Relativist

You seemed to hold the the opposite, negating its "perdurance" and essence over time.

Either way, there has to be "something" whereby it is differentiated form another thing. That is to say, whereby we can talk about that entity being an individual that is its own thing, and not simply a part of something else. Another set of gametes is not transposable. Hence, a second before or after would have been another person.

So you also bring up an idea that is along the same lines as Graham Harman who had a notion that objects are often "overmined" or "undermined". That is to say, often it is bypassed by being reduced to its parts or overmined for any relation whatsoever in the universe or at least, tangentially related to it. From Wiki:

"Object-oriented thought holds that there are two principal strategies for devaluing the philosophical import of objects.[18] First, one can undermine objects by claiming that they are an effect or manifestation of a deeper, underlying substance or force.[19] Second, one can "overmine" objects by either an idealism which holds that there is nothing beneath what appears in the mind or, as in social constructionism, by positing no independent reality outside of language, discourse or power.[20][21] Object-oriented philosophy fundamentally rejects both undermining and "overmining", since both approaches hand-wave objects away by attributing their existence to other, more fundamental elements of reality.[22]

In a 2013 paper, Graham Harman also discussed the concept of duomining.[23] Borrowing the word from computing science, Harman uses "duomining" to refer to philosophical or ontological approaches that both undermine and overmine objects at the same time. Harman asserts that Quentin Meillassoux's ontology is based on "a classic duomining position", since "he holds that the primary qualities of things are those which can be mathematized and denies that he is a Pythagorean, insisting that numbers do not exhaust the world but simply point to sort of "dead matter" whose exact metaphysical status is never clarified".[24]" — Wiki Article

I just don't think it entails a sufficiently complete concept of identity. — Relativist

And hence why I also say that it is necessary, just not sufficient...

Edited a post above with second paragraph for clarification:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/862509

That's the thrust of Watts' book, yes. — Wayfarer

But the next part?

Just curious, what do you see as a counterfactual to this view, and why wouldn't it be right? Why couldn't there be simply individuation without the unity that you posit? In a trivial way, we can say by way of empirical studies that the world is fundamentally unified in that it matter and energy particles that came from a singularity right before the big bang. But of course, that is not what you mean either. — schopenhauer1

But again, quite tangential to the OP. — Wayfarer

Indeed, but I asked for clarification, so thanks for that. I question your assertion that the individual is illusory other than that it is a grandiose way of saying it is constructed from experience. But that is a common psychological view. However, I think you are going a step beyond this and saying that there is a greater existence beyond this one we think we experience, that is beyond the constructs of the mind, and some nirvana-like state is the real, non-illusory or whatnot, and this individuation we feel is illusory.

Just curious, what do you see as a counterfactual to this view, and why wouldn't it be right? Why couldn't there be simply individuation without the unity that you posit? In a trivial way, we can say by way of empirical studies that the world is fundamentally unified in that it matter and energy particles that came from a singularity right before the big bang. But of course, that is not what you mean either.