I don't want to underplay the size of his ego/egomania. But party really does matter, because the support for the Conservatives is being squeezed in a few ways. To be in government requires a large number of MPs behind you and in our electoral system for those MPs to become elected comes down to votes on the ground, which are not easy to secure. And don't underestimate the fear amongst the party of a Corbyn government. — Punshhh

Yes the party matters as a means to elect MPs and get a government, but when the voters courted by populists vote they vote for the figurehead, not the party. If the Brexit Party makes inroads at the coming election it will be Farage its voters go for - the party un-ashamedly had no policies for the Euro elections! Likewise the Boris Party will be what its intended voters vote for. Yes many of them are Tories, but I think the era of allegiance to party rather than ideas and leaders is coming to a close. It is probably a temporary change however, and once Brexit is in the past old political tribalism will return.

↪Echarmion
I don't know what his long time aims are, or his party, as he is surrounded by chaos and it is accepted that the strategy is in the hands of a shady unelected advisor Dominic Cummings. Who is a clever strategist who is well aware of how populism works at this time. — Punshhh

Boris's strategy - and Cummings' is simple. To be the man who despite all the remoaners and cowards achieved Brexit. Ideally he wants to stick to his Oct 31st promise. But if parliament dictates an election first, he can get away with a few weeks' delay and campaign on the promise to do it as soon as he's returned with a majority. He can then repeal the anti-no-deal legislation and present the EU with an ultimatum to drop the back-stop and agree a new deal, or he'll leave with no deal.

I don't think he's much interested in the Tory party as a historical institution, but only as a party in his own image - just like Trump and the Republicans. All the older generation who care about the party's past have gone from the Cabinet, replaced by young hard-liners who will follow his will. Populism is about individual demagogues. The disillisioned Brexit voters trust leaders, not parties..

The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

Well I'm surprised by that, but really pleased. It prioritises parliament's right and abilty to hold the govt to account. The next question is whether Boris can keep his job. The opposition hope not, but I think the populist rules the Tories now espouse say he can..

Hey the Labor party seems to have gotten itself into a right pickle. Going on what I'm reading here in Oz, they're tearing themselves to pieces over Brexit at the Conference, and Corbyn has abysmal poll ratings. It's such a shame - if only there was an alternative leader to seize the moment, but I'm afraid Corbyn's not it. — Wayfarer

Agreed. Corbyn has yet again sat on the fence. He seems to want to please all of the Labour membership all of the time rather than Lead. One of the criticisms made of Theresa May's Brexit negotiations was that, as a remainer, her heart was never really in getting the best deal from Brussels. In theory it sounds fine that if Corbyn wins an election, then negotiates the best deal with the EU, and puts it to another referendum, he himself can remain neutral. But assuming he has a view (usually thought to be 'leave') that must affect his attitude to the negotiations. He cannot negotiate impartially any more than May could. Remain opponents within Labour will pounce on this and undermine him. And we're back in the same situation as we've been with the Tories for the past 2 years..

Trump and republican talking heads are willing to deny taped statements, be completely self-contradictory and make no plausible "truthiness theater" (which Republicans, pre-Trump, would at least go through the motions of; so Trump is a not straying too far from Republican strategy and intellectual honesty, but it is a new phase where intellectual honesty is no longer even a "pretend value" but openly mocked). — boethius

This is the most appalling truth about populism. Trump knows that his supporters don't follow politics, so he can contradict what he said last week and they won't mind, or possibly even notice. As long as he's true to their values their trust remains. It's identity politics, as I mentioned before. Trump's voters identify with him and that's their politics. They don't need or want to think beyond that. The Brexiteer credo in the UK is much the same. In both arenas the airing of arguments becomes irrelevent, a distraction - a fear-inducing one - for those who don't understand the arguments and in them just see a threat to their identities.

My fear is that democracy is thus dying beneath the weight of politicians whose strategy is the exploitation of the ignorant. These politicians' aim is not the improvement of the country, but the ego-driven continuation of their own power. Most know this about Trump, and over here in the UK we're realising BJ is from the same mould. I would be interested to see a statistical analysis of the depth of the population's political knowledge, and thus learn whether the majority really are just identity-minded. I used to use the sales of tabloid newspapers vs those of broadsheets, since the split in their readers' mind-sets effectively drives the 2 different journalistic approaches. It' hard to tell with sales of both falling fast nowadays, but I used to reckon the sales ratio was 4 to 1 - tabloids vs broadsheets. That's a dispiriting thought!

I agree with all you say. The mistake was in part Cameron's for calling the referendum and not realising that the result could cause all sorts of problems. The in-out question was too simple, as has become all too obvious in the 3 years since. I must admit it was hard to forsee all this in 2016 though. Those Brexiteers screaming about the loss of their democratic right if the decision is ignored need to learn what a parliamentary democracy is..

I think it's dangerous to say 'the view of the people is not important in a democracy' though. It clearly is, else the word 'democracy' loses its meaning; but that view is expressed only at the level of electing a govt every few years. The UKs problem is that many people don't think their election vote makes any difference, so given an extra opportunity like a binary referendum where they clearly can control future events (by kicking the establishment), it is galling now to be told the result will not be honoured. Subtleties like the fact that a no-deal Brexit was not envisaged at the time, nor would it be supported by the majority now, are lost in the rage to ensure the vote's promise is kept.

It looks to me that the court will find against the government, but may take a less controversial route, that of it was unlawful to Proroge due to the loss of bills in process and the inability for parliament to legislate and hold the executive to account for more time than necessary during a time critical political crisis. Rather than that Johnson mislead the Queen. — Punshhh

Listening to the statements from both lawyers yesterday I learned that the defence parliament has to the PM's seemingly limitless power to prorogue it lies in its ability to request and pass a vote of no-confidence in the PM's govt, thus triggering an election. This was described by Lord Keen as a political defence rather than a legal one, which is part and parcel of the unwritten constitution. That sounds fine, but in the current situation - as he is well aware, that defence would be of no use as the PM could manipulate the timing of the election to suit his own ends - ie achieve Brexit on Oct 31 by default, either before the vote or in the days after it if no majority govt was elected.

The case for Miller/Major seems to hinge on the fact that Boris's reasons for proroguing are suspect, and that he lied in his advice to the Queen, so the suspension of parliament is invalid. However, if lying was not allowed in politics, would we have any politics?

So we have responses to two different questions; one political-masquerading-as-legal and one purely political. Clearly this is a unprecedented situation which the constitution is ill-equiped to handle. It will be interesting to see whether the judges prioritise the faux-legal aspect over the political one. As lawyers this is what I would expect, but I think there would be cries of 'shame' if they ignored the shabby conduct of the PM. So I think maybe a recommendation that some form of written constitution detailing the PM's powers be examined in the longer term will come too.

For instance, to contrast to Trump, Trump supporters have almost zero expectations of what Trump will do other than continue to be Trump. The few places where Trump supporters want delivery, Trump has a lot of power to deliver: crack down on immigrants. — boethius

I don't know the US scene, but isnt Trump the guarantor of all the male white-collar industrial jobs that globalism and immigration threaten? Hence trade wars to defend US companies.

Whereas for BJ, if the expectation is to deliver Brexit in a way that's "good for the economy", and he doesn't deliver (Brexit doesn't happen or then hard Brexit happens and his supporters are surprised things don't improve), will his support continue? — boethius

No, Brexit won't be good economically, no-one believes it will. But we will muddle through, and Boris will find some way to blame international trading conditions or the EU for being malicious. Populist voters have very short memories. Their support, as with Trump, is based on trust rather than anything deeper. They trust him to keep the foreigners out and believe in such simplistic fallacies as optimism to make things work. (They can understand that; unlike all the economic arguments). You may be right that Boris's come-uppance will be swift - but Trump's almost at re-election point and his house of cards hasn't fallen down yet..

What's really amazing is that BJ's popularity (in the UK, and more so in the conservative base) seems to be going up in all this. — boethius

This is the rise of populism in the UK. Very sad. Nietzsche spoke of 'slave morality', which unlike 'master morality' is not driven by lofty aims and theorems, but expediency. The ignorant Brexiteer masses don't care about the law or constitution, they just want out of the EU, and as Boris has chosen to champion that simplistic end they support him; thus he's won back hard-line ex-Tories from the Brexit party. Much is spoken now about identity politics, and it's clear that many Brexiteers are now so scared of 'their' referendum result being ignored that they no longer care about the problems of no-deal, they just want their democratic outcry acted upon at any cost. It's the rise of cartoon, black-and-white politics, the dumbing down of debate and the hyping of one-line emotive tropes based usually on fear. We now have a simplistic one-line Brexit policy from the Lib Dems. How long until Labour follows?

So I don't think there's much chance of Boris's popularity waning in a sudden outbreak of enlightened debate and a realisation of the facts of the situation among Brexiteers. The only hope is that parliament - which is the repository of sense in this battle - can frustrate his do-or-die Brexit, and, longer term, push for a full written constitution to set down the limits of the PM's powers and stop him playing dictator again. Whatever happens, I expect Boris will still find a way to say he was frustrated by the 'Remainer parliament' (lies: do the sums..) and keep most supporters on board. He's learned a lot from Trump..

It will be interesting to see what transpires in the Supreme Court. At the heart of the case seems to be the dividing line between the court's jurisdiction and the government's. There has been much talk about Boris's motives for proroguing parliament, and whether they are valid. But surely the point of law is whether and to what extent a PM is allowed to prorogue, whatever his reason. Under our nebulous unwritten constitution, as I understand it, precedent says he can, but only for a few weeks for the conference season. So what if he decides to prorogue for longer? He can always justify any decision as political, so unless the court stipulates a maximum time limit what is to stop a PM from closing parliament for as long as he wants, certainly until after October 31st? An unwritten constitution requires politicians to play by those unwritten rules. Sadly, in the age of populism, ends alone matter, not means; so will a written constitution inevitably be the result?

I think the link between ethics and aesthetics is real, and it's not about one being the source of the other, it's that both come from the same deeper source; namely evolutionary necessity. Ethics is hard-wired genetically passed information about how to behave to maximise the chances of our success as an advanced social group. Aesthetics concerns how to survive and act as an individual. The smell of faeces is repugnant precisely because it's unhealthy for us to eat - so that smell discourages us from handling it. If we see a beautiful day, it seems so in order to attract us outside to work and provide food. An ugly day might be cold, wet and windy, and the danger of illness inherent in prolonged exposure prompts us to stay inside. (I'm talking here about the lives of early humans, living close to and inextricably dependent upon the natural world). As Keats said: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty. That's all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." What we perceive as beauty contains a deeper meaning about the means of our survival.
I think if you believe Darwin's theories, it is impossible for anything that we are, perceive or believe, to be inate in us for any reason other than to aid our survival.

If you suffer from depression (as I have), it will have a cause. Try actually listening to those professionals who you admit know more than you do, you might learn enough about yourself to take on the problem. Simply trying in your ignorance to be your own doctor is doomed to failure..

Re the egg-smell and the rock. Smells are perceptions of vapours, which consist of atoms and molecules just as rocks do. The smell is a sense perception, but so is the image of a rock which you're comparing it with. The distinction you make between the subjective smell and the objective rock is I think invalid.

Philosophy is the study of unanswerable questions. Once a question gains a widely accepted answer it moves into 'science'.

Now if I take this conceptual distinction back to the parochial, I start to see in the increase of internal division, in the concern with borders, and foreigners as threats, a consistent movement from patriotism to nationalism both in the US and the UK, and elsewhere. — unenlightened

Agreed (from my UK perspective). I think generally patriotism is based on pride in your country's culture and achievements. Nationalism is based on a fear of foreigners who might harm that culture. Patriots have no enemies. Nationalists (in this sense) see enemies everywhere.

For me it's curiosity. If you have a brain capable of conceiving beyond the chaos and mundanities of everyday life you wonder about how and why things work the way they do (or don't). And then, how they could or should work. I too like to be in control - at least to the extent that I understand what's happening, even if I often can't influence it. If you can understand why people make decisions you don't agree with your anger and sense of powerlessness can dissipate.

If God is real, why is the world bad? — csalisbury

It isn't 'bad'. There are bad things in it, and good things. Lots of both. Infact the world looks rather like the bizarre and chaotic mixture of good and bad which you might expect if God didn't exist..

What do you mean by "true" giving. You seem to be separating giving: into ordinary giving - ie a Christmas present; and "true" giving, which is at some higher level. Is that because it has required sacrifice?

If I give my life on the battlefield to save a colleague then yes that is a greater gift than if I gave him a Christmas present. But the label "true" seems to infer some spiritual dimension. I think it needs explaining...

I agree with Bentham that 'rights and duties' are not moral at all. They are completely meaningless in an ethical scope, purely speaking. I am proposing that, for the sake of it's utility, we let each their own without fear of persecution. You are correct, we have the right to legs and eyes, but not all of us have them. — nihil

I'm not sure what you mean in the 3rd sentence..

What I'm saying about arms and legs is not that we have a right to them, but that it is meaningless to talk about whether we have a right to them. If we do, who gave us that right, God? If you believe that, then fine, you can talk about our right to a self in the same way. If you're an atheist like me then the idea of the right to a self or ego makes no sense..

We are made of thought, so we do cease to exist when we stop thinking. — Jake

No - unless your heart beating is somehow connected to your thoughts! We are still alive and aware of our environment. Our awareness is not created by thought. It is present at a more fundamental level. We share it and the instinct to act on what our senses tell us with animals. Mind has developed on top of that along with language. You still confuse the self constructed by language and mind with existance at a more primal level..

We might focus on the phrase "you are encouraged to break your identification with your ego". Such a conception seems to assume that "you" and "ego" are two different things, and one is supposed to manage the other in some manner. — Jake

Correct.

As example, consider the phrase "my thoughts" or "I am thinking XYZ". All such phrases imply a division between what is sometimes called the observer and the observed. — Jake

Correct. If there wasn't one, when you stopped thinking you'd cease to exist.

It's my sense that all such perceived divisions are an illusion generated by the way thought works. If true, then procedures such as "breaking identification with ego" would seem to strengthen that illusion. — Jake

I am often accused by the mindfullness group leader whose group I go to of thinking too much. I think you are guilty of this too. I've learned that it is a mistake to believe thought holds all the answers. I suggest you read a book on Zen to learn more..

In Buddhism - certainly the Zen type that I favour, you are not discouraged from trying to change the world, so that's a misconception. You are encouraged to break your identification with your ego, which drives your desire to change the world solely for your own benefit. With no ego your goal often becomes to change the world for the benefit of all, not just yourself. And as your ego is stilled you can try and fail with no sense of self-agrandisement if you succeed or self-abasement if you fail.

An oriental Buddhist girl who is exploited working in a sweatshop" which accepts the world as it is and follows the Dharma no questions asked.

No. In the short-term she will benefit from accepting her life, rather than railing against it or succumbing to depression or fear. In the longer term she should work towards improving it if that is what she wants. How she improves it - eg by getting a better job, going on-strike or starting a revolution, is for her to decide.

Should we bother about the external world if it doesn't affect in our way to attain Enlightenment? — pbxman

That depends on you. If you're happy living as an enlightened hermit then fine. If your growing sense of social involvement and compassion towards others opens your eyes to injustice then you may wish to do what you can to change things. Buddhism doesn't tell you what your goals should be. It's concerned with allowing you to identify them for yourself, and with better equiping you to pursue them.

A computer can create, just as a monkey can, but is what it creates art? Art is virtually impossible to define as it's so subjective, but it is usually measured by its effect - in emotional and intellectual terms - on its human audience. A great artist is someone who can recognise what it takes to produce these effects and do it at will. I think we are a long way from a computer algorithm which can duplicate this. I think art will be the last bastion of man's sense of superiority over AI, but I don't know if or when that wall will be breached. Still, even if AI evolves into its own conscious life-form, would what it considers of aesthetic value fit our tastes?

The odds are massively against a 65 year old male of Czech ancestry winning because we only comprise .03% of the US population - so my chances of winning were .03%* the average American's chances. — Relativist

The fact of your nationality (and age) is irrelevent as regards your chance of winning a lottery, so this statement is wrong. The chance that the winner would be a Czech (any Czech) may be .03% of the chance that it would be an American (any American), but your chance as an individual is the same as any other individual's.

Transitively, we all share the ego, as certain as we are born. If we all share this, then we have a right to it, as certain as it is ours. — nihil

To say we have a right to an ego is meaningless. Bentham called rights 'Nonsense on stilts'. Where is that 'right' enshrined? You could say we have a right to legs or eyes, but not all of us have them.

the cultivation of the self in order to understand what could be done in the face of the inevitable — nihil

Dealing with mortality has nothing to do with ego. The ego reacts against death with fear, anger, denial - not understanding and the will the learn. To handle the big questions of life you need to move beyond ego.

My employees might do their jobs properly or might not, I don't know but I certainly don't trust them to do their jobs. — Judaka

So why did you (or whoever made the decision) hire them? I'm guessing you trust them to do a competent job most of the time - if not a perfect job all the time. If not why haven't they been fired? I think maybe your pragmatism is a rationalisation of trust, rather than a stand-in for it.

Does no trust mean that you always plan for the worst case scenarios as though they're the most likely? — Judaka

What's that old phrase? "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

'No trust' in what situation?..

I could treat my employees like I trust them because I think this will deliver the best results. — Judaka

That means you do trust them! Unless of course you're duplicating their work behind the scenes, so as to cover over their failures when they arise..

I think 'trust' is an evaluation of risk. When trusting someone to do a job you judge that their skills are sufficient, also that your judgement of their skills is likely to be correct. If you don't think both of those, what do you do? Do you let them get on with it anyway? Only if you know you can clear up the mess afterwards I think.. And in that case the trust is not present.

Any matter of trust is about making a bargain. It comes down to judging what you have to give in order to get what you want.

I might also ask whether "trust" is a spectrum or not. If I trust my friend to keep my secret, what exactly does that mean? How much do i need to be willing to think he might not keep my secret until we can't say I trust him anymore or how certain do I need to be that he will keep my secret before we say I trust him to. — Judaka

Of course, nothing is black and white: If I say I believe in black holes - or that I trust that they exist because scientists say so, does that mean that if NASA told me one was going to engulf my house I'd move out on spec?

Perhaps you can measure trust by whether or not you're willing to act upon it. So if in theory you trust your friend with money, in practise will you lend him some when he asks?

189 = (6 * 30) + 9. Digits = (6 * 3) + 9 = 27. — Tim3003

I realised in bed last night that this doesnt work, since the total of 189's digits is 18 not 27.
More thought needed...

Cameron was a brexiteer, who sabotaged his credibility with false promises and a huge, deliberate failure on immigration, and with a renegotiation that educated the public, but was predestined to fail - before appointing himself chief spokesman for Remain, and losing on purpose. — karl stone

I would have thought those on this site were above absurd conspiracy theories.

- for any number divisible by 3, the sum of the digits is divisible by 3
- for any number divisible by 9, the sum of the digits is divisible by 9 — andrewk

These are interesting. I think they both depend on being factors of 9.

Going through the multiples of 3:
The digits of 3, 6 and 9 are 3, 6 and 9 - clearly divisible by 3.
12 is next: Adding 3 to 9 results in an increase of 1 in the 10's column and a decrease of 7 in the units column. So for the digits +1 and -7 net out at -6. Hence the digits of 12 are those of 9 less 6. Ie still divisible by 3.
Then come 15, 18 - again adding 3 to the units column, so digits must be divisible by 3.
21 is like 12 - add 1 to the 10's, subtract 7 from the units. Again, net -6 from 18. Still fine.
24 and 27 are like 15 and 18.
30 is like 21 and 12.
So we've got to 10 * 3, with all having digit totals divisible by 3. Any multiplication of 3 above 30 can be built by adding combinations of these together. So they too must be divisible by 3.
Eg 54 = 30 + 24. Digits = 3 + 6 = 9.
81 = 3 * 27. Digits = 3 * 9 = 27. Or 81 = (2 * 30) + 21. Digits = (2 * 6) + 3 = 15.
189 = (6 * 30) + 9. Digits = (6 * 3) + 9 = 27.

For 9 it's simpler, as each addition of 9 adds 1 to the 10's column and subtracts 1 from the units column. So for all multiples of 9 up to 90 the digits total 9. From then on the same logic applies as for 3.

↪Tim3003
In face you make me realize that even science is probably based on trust. The trust that the same causes will lead to the same effects. — Hypnos

We can trust nature I think, but the question refers to whether we must trust other people. We trust that scientists are telling us the truth about the world, and that plane we're flying in won't crash even though we don't understand why not.

The only way it is possbile to live without trusting anyone is to become totally self-sufficient — Tim3003


Could you trust yourself? — TheMadFool

You'd have little choice!

Aren't you over-complicating it?

The square of any even number is infact an even number multiplied by itself (ie another even number). And that multiplication is infact the repeated addition of a string of even numbers.
So 6 squared = 6 * 6, = 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6.
Is it not axiomatic that an even number added to another even number always gives an even number?

The

I'd like to take a minute to discuss how we as scientific believers can explain the existence to a person of religion. — ep3265

The key is your mentioning religion. I'd guess that virtually everyone who doesnt believe evolution believes in fundamentalist religous doctrine; and since the two conflict the person has to choose. For someone who believes in the literal truth of the Bible the choice is simple. So you have to challenge and break that wilfull ignorance of science. Good luck!

The only way it is possbile to live without trusting anyone is to become totally self-sufficient, which at any advanced standard of living is impossible. So you'd end up a wandering lone nomad, living off what you could kill or steal like a wild animal. One way or another, you wouldn't last long. Our society is built on trust, even the most basic social animals like dogs could not live in a pack without trusting others to respect their position in the pecking order.

Brexit does not work for anyone but disaster capitalists. It needs to stop. — karl stone

I agree. Unfortunately, about 45% of the UK public don't. (I'm allowing 5-10% more for law-of-the-jungle capitalists). The problem is to refute the simplistic 'take back control' justifications for Brexit. Those of us with sense know they're illusory, but many others are swayed by historical notions of Brittania ruling the waves, and anything that appeals to that jingoism gets their vote. The Leave campaign long ago figured this out and exploited it for all it's worth. Pity Remainers didn't, and Cameron fought an inept referendum campaign instead, refusing to engage with the histrionic rubbish talked about immigration and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...

Our best hope is that as MPs are more sensible than the voters, they will ignore pressure to parrot their constituents' simplistic ideas and vote out May's plan. Then the Commons can vote for a more moderate Brexit, at least forcing a delay - or a general election.

The Irish border problem can, and in the end probably will, be solved by the UK staying in the EU Customs Union. I've yet to hear a good reason for not doing so. All that twaddle about being able to do our own trade deals is a red herring. Like most of the 'freedoms' we will gain by Brexit it's illusory.

In Orwell's 1984, one of the totalitarian state's means of enslaving the populace was to outlaw many of the subtlties of language, and by restricting the common vocabulary so to restrict the ability to conceive dangerous thoughts. I think this as a method is worth considering in response to your question. I agree that without a word to name a mental concept, that concept is itself far more difficult, and impossible to communicate.

But the point about popular conversation, dominated as you say by slang, short-cuts and mis-nomers, is that it changes over time as word fashions mutate. I'm not sure its correct to say the common vocabulary decreases, and neither does its fitness for purpose. I'd guess it is limited by human brain size, so new words come in as fast as old ones are lost and it evolves to suit the needs of everyday life.

However, surely rigorous intellectual discussion stays above popular terms - it has to as common words are often insufficient to describe its concepts, and slang is irrelevant. How much has the language of philosophy or physics degenerated over time? Not much I'd guess..

Re the decline of the Classics: did the common peasant ever quote Virgil or Homer? I very much doubt it. Education is what expands our vocabularies, and the further we progress the more specific our terms become. Fewer of us these days are educated in the Classics than say 150 years ago, but then no-one in Victorian times could understand discussions on computing or abstract art...

So maybe what we have is a mutating common vocabulary, plus many specialised sub-vocabularies, only 1 or 2 of which most of us can fully understand. These specialised areas are the conduits of complex ideas. They have always been unintelligible to the layman, but nevertheless they will surely survive as long as the fields of study they describe.

According to Wikipedia: "Intelligence has been defined in many ways, including: the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, and problem solving. More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context. "

If we cant agree on its definiton, how can we agree on its exemplar?