I see. Couple world greats huh?

Wow. Why do you have to be cruel to Metaphysician?

How could anyone dare to argue with one of the greatest mathematicians in the world?
Though I am honoured you came down from the mountain to humble us (im sure your very busy with all the genius math you are doing) with your declarations, I simply can not in good conscience go against your almost singular understanding of mathematics, O Calculating One.
“2+2 equals anything but 4”.
Riveting. Bold. Original. Gregory the Great ladies and gentlemen, be humbled in his presence or not at all.
:meh:

Philosophy isn't at all practical. You can't use philosophy in your ordinary life. — Wheatley

Ok, so that seems to contradict what you said in the above quote. Philosophy seems to have some practical value after all, and is useful in everyday life.

I think that there is a lot of philosophy that is sort of arcane and impractical like you say but there is a lot thats useful as well.
It depends on how you define philosophy, I think a case could be made that philosophy can be applied generically, outside academia as well as within. To me, its more about thinking, how to think and thoughtful consideration than strictly academia or philosophical history.
The more impractical aspects of philosophy are also interesting as thought exercise, which I would say is of practical value.

Ok, so are critical thinking and logic of practical value?

Edited for clarity.

You arent answering the question, Im not sure why but you keep giving me Wishy washy non-sequators. Ill take the hint and leave you be.

Sure, thats fine. Im asking you if you think those two things fall under “philosophy”. Like, if you were to study critical thinking or logic, would I be taking a philosophy class or something else? Its like if I asked you if geometry or calculus are under the purview of math....you wouldnt say “not so fast, using geometry isnt the same as studying geometry”, thats non-sequitor.
Do you think critical thinking and logic fall under the purview of philosophy?

So thats no? They arent under the purview of philosophy?
Im asking because if they were a part of philosophy then that would mean the claim philosophy is not at all practical is false as those things are clearly very practical. Have you considered that implication?

You dont think critical thinking or the rules of logic are philosophy then I take it?

How do you define philosophy? What is it you dislike about it?

Sure, but isnt 2 the only one determinism specifically entails? Thats not mutually exclusive to what you said.

On review, Anscombe seems to me not to be saying that even if we had perfect information we could not predict the landing place of the ball, but rather that since we do not have perfect information, we cannot do so. — Banno

Ok, then I would only point out how little is actually being said there, seems pretty obvious at that point.

That is, determinism ceases to be a physical Law so much as a metaphysical desire on the part of certain philosophers — Banno

Well it could be both those things.
So there are 3 things at play, the knowledge of how something is determined to go(which we can do pretty well on pretty simple examples), the actual things that determine the way things go and the range of determinate factors we are actually able (and/or not able to) to track.
It seems to me only the middle one is what determinism is about. The others are so much more generic and tangental as to fall under different purview.

If nothing else, they ought not be taken as granted. — Banno

Agreed.

But of course no one could determine the final resting place of the ball. Even the smallest error in the initial positions will be magnified until it throws out the calculations. — Banno

That doesnt show that determinism fails, it shows the limits of the predictive method used. This is just increasing the complexity of the calculation to create the illusion that it isnt determined (cuz we cant show how, which is a fallacy).
A box of much simpler design would show determinism quite obviously. We could increase the complexity of the box and continue showing how the balls path is determined right up until the point where the complexity grows beyond our ability to predict but that doesnt show determinism failing, it would only show the ability to predict as failing.

Alright, then I dont think you are talking about something that can be said to be ethically wrong. Those are preferences, and a matter if risk managment not morality/ethics.

It's all hypothetical in which I've yet to determine whether self-harm is wrong in the first place. One thing at a time. — Wheatley

Ok, well perhaps a distinction between different types of self harm would be helpful? Some things are more pure self harm, like stabbing yourself in the eye, while other things have a clear trade-off like eating junk food or going to the beach and suffering harm from the sun. You trade harm for pleasure of experience.
Would that kind of cost/benefit analysis be useful forvwhst yiu have in mind?

At what point does preference become self harm? Some things inflict more self harm than others, how do you determine what amount is ok or not?
Also, ate you talking ethically permissible self harm, or using some other goal/metric.

No, I wouldn't say they much in common except irrelevant, generic categorisations.

So now the founders beliefs have nothing to do with the movement?
If the KKK grand wizard, a self proclaimed KKK-racist, founded a movement and then decentralised his leadership you would say his self proclaimed KKK racist beliefs wouldn't be relevant to the movement? You wouldnt be suspicious of that movement?

What does Karl Marx have to do with an activist movement with no centralized local leader? — Wheatley

In what way does the beliefs of a movements founders not “have to do” with the movement? I would think it would have quite a lot to do with the movement, so please explain that ine to me sir.

Unfortunately I think it will stay, the foundations are too strong (academia churns out new brainwashed minions every year), to firmly entrenched in the minds of the general populace. It will fail, its designed to suicide itself, but not before their pound of flesh becomes a ton. Not before we repeat modern histories worst.

I need you to cite a source not "I got that from the BLM founder" however, I found what you claimed according to the New York Post: — Anaxagoras

I linked a video of her saying it.

My apologies for this long post for the sake of preventing misunderstanding I hope you read it all. — Anaxagoras

I did read it all. I appreciate that the subject comes with a lot of trigger words and weaponised language but alot of what you clarified wasnt addressing points I actually made. Because of the format (text) communication is difficult on this subject (Or any really) so its usually better to operate under a principal of charity.
Obviously we disagree fundamentally and despite your protests I still think you are closed off to anything that contradicts your comfy narrative. You’ve been trained to see racism where there is none, though I understand you can just as easily say the same to me. (In reverse).

Try that sentence with a different “ism” in it. Suddenly not so shades worthy huh?

Thats Agist. Lol

Perhaps some people suffer from Trump Derangement syndrome after all huh? :wink:

https://youtu.be/HgEUbSzOTZ8

And then ask yourself why you were so sure what I was saying was bullshit. Recognise how closed off you’ve become to anything that doesnt fit your comfy narrative. I didnt repeat right wing or white supremest talking points, I got that right from the BLM co-founder.
Now ask yourself about the other things I said, and instead of operating under the presumption im some sort of uncle tom race traitor or a white supremest based on words that trigger you try operating under the presumption that i might (might...thats a low bar) be saying something true or worth hearing.
If a white supremest says the sky is blue, and I say the sky is blue does that mean Im repeating white supremest talking points?
Its not ok to group someone in with evil people just because they say something youre not comfortable hearing, and thats what I found offensive. Your narrow perspective and limited understanding of the race issue has caused you to act like an asshole. A decent person would be apologetic.

Whether I got something wrong or there is a discussion to be had is irrelevant. I have no interest in working around your entrenched prejudices, you can characterise me however you like but I dont need to waste my time engaging you.
Now to quote the great Gene Wilder:
“I SAID GOOD DAY!”

Ok. I’m quite familiar with people who are of color that promote white supremacist rhetoric and although I am not identifying you as one, you’re talking points are dangerously close to the rhetoric they espouse. — Anaxagoras

I find this characterisation offensive. Thats not what Im doing. Good day sir.

↪DingoJones I'm not seeing the implications of Ockham's Razor on a bunch of fields, but if you think there are some, I'd like to hear about them. — Pfhorrest

Well using Occums Razor here would be something like “do not add reasons or axioms except out of necessity”.
I reviewed your core principals, this seems similar to me, would the above qualify?

No forum anywhere represents the world. The internet is a cesspool that attracts the absolute worst people this side of murderers and rapists. What happens in this forum or any other is hopelessly skewed. This site tries to keep the trash out with some higher standards. You want more wide open gates, but as far as I can tell diversity of discussion isnt the mandate, quality is.

Ok, so something like Occums Razor?

Ok, I misunderstood. You want something that obligates me to certain conclusions across multiple topics, the way logic does? And it has to be specific to each discipline? Is that right?

Well as you increase your awareness of politics you will find connection to other topics because of overlap with them. Why are these people acting this way in this area of politics? Boom, sociology, psychology, biology...awareness is key so in so much as they in fact overlap you will need to encompass that in your knowledge in order for your “key” (awareness) to unlock the doors of politics.
There are bound to be topics that do not overlap of course, but the principal still forms the basic analysis for those separate topics.

Ok, i understand.
I have core principals but not sure how theyd fit into your framing nor if any would be concrete enough for yiur query, so ill just throw one out and see if its what you are looking for.
Im always saying “awareness is key”. I think its fundamental to whatever free will you think humans might have, to communication and by extension philosophy and language, to self reflection and therefore self improvement...everything, as more awareness leads to more connections between not just sub categories but all categories.
Operationally awareness should be maximised as a first step, and constantly updated throughout other steps. I generally assume in discussion of philosophy that my discussion partner knows something I do not if they disagree with me and the updating of awareness at each step dictates that knowledge be assimilated so get after it.
Thats the gist, is that the kinda thing you mean? Feels like its too generic fir yiur purpose.

Is it a cop-out to offer something like reason or logic? I think most people have those as core principals, but im not sure if you are looking fir something more specific...and wouldnt core principals be applied basically in all your thinking?
Sorry, I think its an interesting question but Im a bit fuzzy on how to start answering.

No. Because these “residual effects” are embedded in different facets of society such as racism in healthcare, economics, policing etc. — Anaxagoras

The word “racism” is not necessary in your statement. At best you could say the residual effects of racism. There isnt That much that you are attributing to racism that couldnt also be attributed to socio-economics.

No it does not. If I’m identifying a problem how am I altering the response? — Anaxagoras

Well if the problem is a racist system the response is going to be much different, its going to justify social control. So mis-labelling the problem as systemic racism will result in unjustified social control.
Its not that identifying the problem is bad, its identifying the problem incorrectly. Thats what I think is happening with “systemic racism”. Its similar to when people say things like:
1 Nazi’s are bad
2 its ok to punch nazi’s
3 everyone that disagrees with my systemic racism narrative is a nazi
4 i should punch people who disagree with my narrative.

Its a word game, a tactic, to exercise social control. The Black Lives Matter founders freely admit and our proud to say that they are “trained Marxists”. If that doesnt cause you to take another look at the narrative being pushed then im not sure what to say to you.
As far as talking points, I understand that there are people who push a “right wing” counter-narrative that involves some of the things I am mentioning and I call that the same sort of game, and damn them for making normal words trigger words so its difficult (sometimes impossible) to have an actual discussion.
“White privilege” is a bullshit term too, and part of the same tactical playbook. Same with the way “racism” is now defined as “prejudice plus power”, a bullshit definition so people can be openly racist and not have to worry about being called a racist. It utterly fails under scrutiny. Its all part of this ideology being peddled in academia thats churning out useful idiots to join the sjw army.

This is simply ridiculous. — Anaxagoras

I agree, your strawman is ridiculous. I said “race”, not racism.
It matters if someone is racist, of course. Race itself isnt a big issue for anyone other than racists and people who think everyone is a racist. Two minority groups, with the majority of people realising its not really that important what someones race is. Ill admit the latter is catching on thiugh, many have bought the narratives of systemic racism, unconscious racism , identity politics etc etc.

No, everyone doesn’t get it. But I’m sure indirectly you’re saying in effect everyone perhaps white who thinks like you get it. Not to presume YOUR ethnicity per se but again, this is a typical talking point. — Anaxagoras

Ya I understand. I hear similar things that have been picked up and repeated as talking points, its what makes these discussions difficult to have. Anything anyone says can be weaponised by either side and then when anyone else touches the data or words or points then they get immediately grouped in with whichever side has co-opted the data, word or point.
Id like to note however that even though you attempt to avoid “racism” by not presuming my ethnicity, you still are making a judgement about people based on the colour of their skin, their white skin. Im not a white person, but that shouldnt make a difference. White skin shouldnt disqualify someones opinion any more than dark skin does.

Good point. There is probably a few specific areas where what I said applies and a bunch where it doesnt. The ones where it applies are the areas accessible to the uneducated, religion, politics etc, the ones where everyone has an opinion even if its uninformed. Thats probably why they tend to be such toxic/poor discussion topics, they are diluted by the standard idiocy of mankind.

Is that any different than any other topic? Lots of people always have the “dogma” of their particular side they put out and it ruins it for the minority who are actually interested In real discussion?
Topic dependent I suppose. Someone attached to a topic emotionally generally holds discussion back rather than helping it along. Passion is the enemy of reason.

Alright, I guess we are talking about different things.

Which makes no sense so im assuming an actual criticism or joke has gone over my thick but handsome skull.

Which I think is pretty reasonable considering the mods do this for free. (Right?).