• What is the Problem with Individualism?
    I don't require constraints to live in peace with others. — Tzeentch

    That may be but it is evident that many do.
  • What is the Problem with Individualism?
    As such, certain individuals benefitted while others were mostly restrained — NOS4A2

    Covid is not selective. Anyone who avoids getting it benefits. Those around them to whom it may spread benefit. Business benefits by not having a workforce that is sick or dead and goods and services they cannot sell because a large segment of the population is sick or dead.

    Even with all the measures put in place covid is the third leading cause of death in the US. What would the numbers be like if nothing had been done?

    You say nothing about masks. Some act as though a mask mandate is the height of tyranny.
  • What is the Problem with Individualism?
    I just don't believe any of it to be legitimate. — Tzeentch

    This depends on the assumptions about human beings that you bring to the question. If you ascribe to some theory of social atomism, that is, radical autonomy, then any constraint on your freedom will be seen as illegitimate. If, on the other hand you think human beings are by nature social animals then there must be constraints if we are to live together in peace.
  • Water = H20?
    Yea, we're not really getting any closer. — frank

    Well, you could explain his line of thought, but you have no interest in doing so. Or, I could spend some time reading Kripke, but I have no interest in doing so.
  • Water = H20?
    Why necessarily? Couldn't the laws of the universe be different such that H20 is a mineral? — frank

    Necessary in the same sense that a dog is necessarily a mammal, but a mammal is not necessarily a dog.

    I cannot say what would or would not be if the physical laws of the universe were different. Apparently in your scenario they would not be so different that there would no longer be molecules of H20. Whether it was classified as a mineral would be up to whatever beings there were doing classifications. In our universe, however frozen water is classified as a mineral but not liquid water.

    This is the line of thought Kripke addresses. — frank

    I know very little of Kripke's line of thought.
  • The “loony Left” and the psychology of Socialism/Leftism
    You sound pretty defensive yourself, that's why you joined the discussion isn't it? — Apollodorus

    You are projecting. I attempt to defend my position, but I do not get emotionally wrapped up in it. It makes no difference at all to me whether you agree or disagree with me.

    I joined the discussion because I have an abiding interest in political philosophy. My interests are largely theoretical. It is clear that you take this all too personally. I think you would do well to ask yourself why. You may take this as a personal attack but it is not.
  • What is the Problem with Individualism?
    ↪Tzeentch


    Freedom without constraint not restraint.
  • The “loony Left” and the psychology of Socialism/Leftism
    My question was "And what makes us so defensive when discussing opposite views?" — Apollodorus

    By us I assume you include yourself. Start with that. What makes you so defensive? If you say that it is because others are, you are not being honest with yourself.
  • What is the Problem with Individualism?
    And this group of people can lay a claim to the individual's freedom or impose responsibilities, then? — Tzeentch

    Does that not happen where you are from?

    I don't think a state of nature implies an absence of families. — Tzeentch
    then

    The family is a social structure with rules and differences in power. It is not freedom without constraint.
  • What is the Problem with Individualism?
    Man is born into a society not a "state of nature".
    — Fooloso4

    What is society, and how did it take man out of this "state of nature"?     — Tzeentch

    Society is a group of people. Here we are talking about a politically structured society.

    The state of nature is a fiction created by social contract and natural rights theorists - Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and others. Man has never lived in a state of nature. There has always been some organization, starting with the family.
  • Water = H20?
    So you believe H20 is necessarily water?
    — frank

    If he doesn't, I'll defend that view from the point of view of Kripke. Water = H₂O. "H₂O" is a rigid designator. Water is a rigid designator.. Hence. necessarily, Water = H₂O.

    Two Dimensional Semantics may provide an alternative, and I would welcome such a discussion.     — Banno

    The object of a rigid designator is the same. If water is the same object as H20 they could be used interchangeably. They cannot. The molecular structure may not be identical. Water may contain minerals and contaminants. H20 does not. So despite whatever Kripke may claim they are not identical.

    I know nothing of all possible worlds, but I know in this actual world in laboratory conditions you cannot simply use water in place of H20. You can, however, use H20 in place of water.
  • Water = H20?
    So you believe H20 is necessarily water? — frank

    Yes, but water is not necessarily H20
  • Water = H20?
    So we agree that sometimes "H20” means water and sometimes it doesn't. Right? — frank

    From my second post:

    H20 is water, but water is not necessarily H20. — Fooloso4
  • Water = H20?
    For meaning, look to use. — frank

    And this is why just any water will not do in the chem lab. What you take H2O to mean based on the use you are familiar with is not the concept, not the same substance, not the same structure, not the same meaning, and not the same use as what you will find in the lab.
  • What is the Problem with Individualism?
    Modern Liberalism, in my reading, is a more social, statist version of classical liberalism. — NOS4A2

    You are talking about contemporary liberalism. Modern Liberalism refers to the classic philosophers of natural rights.
  • Water = H20?
    I'll match the energy you put into talking about Wittgenstein with me. — frank

    The difference is that I am asking for definitions of specific technical terms. Terms that do not have one single agreed upon usage. Hence I asked you about your understanding of those terms. In our previous discussion, if I remember correctly, no specialized vocabulary was used. There are other differences as well, but I will leave it there.

    It doesn't matter that "water" could be used to mean a mixture of chlorimine and water that might come from your tap. One is expected to discern the use here. — frank

    The use of what? The term water? The difference between intension and extension?

    The elements of H20 are two hydrogen molecules combined with one molecule of oxygen. This is the case in all possible worlds. Water will have the elements of H20 plus some combination of minerals and impurities. When the chemist uses the term H20 she does not mean water. She means only that substance that contains two hydrogen molecules combined with one molecule of oxygen.
  • What is the Problem with Individualism?
    It has been used literally (and as a straw man) in Marx, for example. — NOS4A2

    We were discussing the passage by Blanc that you cited, not Marx.

    I’m not a fan of modern liberalism myself. — NOS4A2

    Modern liberalism and individualism are the same thing - the freedom and rights of the individual.
  • What is the Problem with Individualism?
    Man is born free and without responsibility. — Tzeentch

    Man is born into a society not a "state of nature".

    Responsibility is assumed, and not imposed. — Tzeentch

    Depending on where you life, you may have no choice but to pay taxes, no choice but to keep your property safe or have it condemned, no choice but to have your children or yourself educated to state mandated standards.
  • Water = H20?
    You could do some reading about Kripke and intensional definition, then start threads. — frank

    Nope. Not interested.

    From the link you provided:

    Intensional logic attempts to study both designation and meaning and investigate the relationships between them.

    In the example I gave both the designation and meaning are different, that is, both the extension and intension are different.

    Hesperus is Phosphorous both refer to Venus, but water and H20 do not necessary refer to the same thing. I do not have any problem with the fact that this known a posteriori, but with the fact that a clear distinction can be made in the case of water and H20 that does not exist with Hesperus is Phosphorous.

    If you go into the lab and use tap water instead of H20 insisting that they are the same thing because Kripke told you they are, the experiment will fail. Tap water or water from a lake or river or rain all contain things other than hydrogen and oxygen in the ratio of two to one.
  • Water = H20?
    It's about possible worlds. — frank

    And how does that relate to water and H20?

    There's an SEP article on it. Linked above. — frank

    Yes, but that does not tell me what it means to you.
  • What is the Problem with Individualism?
    No individualist suggested “taking man out of society” — NOS4A2

    This is not meant literally as is clear from what he goes on to say. Man is taken out of society in the sense that he recognizes no authority but his own and no responsibility to anyone but himself. He rejects the idea of the common good. The only good is what he deems good for himself.

    Increasing the space of individual freedom gives opportunity to the irresponsible individual as much as to the responsible one. — NOS4A2

    The modern philosophy of Liberalism attempts to frame political and social issues on the model of the emerging science. "Space" is a neutral term. The failure to recognize responsibility to anyone but yourself is not a matter of "increasing space" but of disregard for others.
  • Water = H20?
    The example of H20 and water is part of a famous Kripkean demonstration of necessity in his possible worlds framework. — frank

    What does he say? I am not asking you to point to a book or article.

    It's about intension. — frank

    What do you understand this to mean?
  • Water = H20?
    H20 is water, but water is not necessarily H20.
    — Fooloso4

    Not according to Kripke, but as I explained, this is not the issue being raised in the OP.     — frank

    Water and H20 can mean two different things and refer to two different objects.

    But to tell the truth I don't know what the issue being raised in the OP is. It does not seem to be the same issue raised in subsequent posts.
  • Water = H20?
    H20 is water, but water is not necessarily H20. If I go into a lab to do an experiment and I am instructed to add H20 and open the tap and add water, the experiment may fail. Water usually has more in it than molecules of H20.

    A molecule of H20 does not have have some of the properties we associate with water. It is not wet.

    one can intelligently talk about water without knowing anything about chemistry. — RogueAI

    We have hard water where I live. We had to put in a water softener. In order to talk about the difference between hard and sort water you need to know a bit of chemistry. Otherwise you might think that hard water is ice cubes.
  • Water = H20?
    I saw a comic once about two guys having lunch. One says I'll have H20 and the other guy says I'll have H20 too. In the next panel he's dead.
  • Reason, belief, ground, argument.
    I mean reason to be the application of logic ... — tim wood

    If by logic you mean bivalent logic then you run into problem with its application to the world since the world does not divide neatly into either/or determinations.
  • Hangman Paradox
    He may be confident he will not be executed, but despite his confidence, if the judge is true to her word he will be executed. He has no way of knowing whether it would be Monday. It cannot be eliminated ahead of time.
  • Hangman Paradox
    Upon reconsideration: Friday can be eliminated. Thursday would be a surprise only if he lived past Wednesday. Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday would all be a surprise.
  • Hangman Paradox
    When I came home I expected a surprise and there was no surprise for me, so of course, I was surprised. — Wittgenstein
  • Hangman Paradox
    If the executioner shows up Friday he will be surprised because he has already ruled it out. The same goes for every other day.
  • Esotericism: Hierarchy & Knowledge
    Socrates is trying to persuade Protarchus to change his way of life. It is not likely that he would persuade him using a rigorous logic argument. The argument should serve the purpose.
  • Esotericism: Hierarchy & Knowledge
    I have to differ again, sorry. The things in our world are mixed objects that contain Forms. — god must be atheist

    They do not contain Forms, but this is generally correct. I don't see what you are objecting to.

    So indeed Socrates denies that forms have more than one qualities or essences. — god must be atheist

    Qualities and essences are not the same thing. The Form man or plant does not preclude those particular qualities essential to them.

    This is of course conjecture, complete conjecture — god must be atheist

    If you mean something he made up then I agree. That is why I called it philosophical poesis - that is, the poetic making of images. I do not want to defend the Forms because I do not think they exist. I do not think Plato is doing ontology. His favorite trilogy of Forms is the just, the beautiful, and the good. He wants to inspire the would be philosopher to seek them out, to discover them, and not just take them to be a matter of opinion.
  • The “loony Left” and the psychology of Socialism/Leftism
    ↪ssu


    I agree. This is why I said in another post:

    I would think it worth identifying them before declaring them spurious.

    ...
    In politics more important might be the actual politics, the implemented policies and so on. — ssu

    But those policies and practices are put in place by people. People vote. People protest. Money and power are great equalizers but what else motivates people to promote one policy rather than another? Back one candidate rather than another? Become a candidate? Run on a particular platform? Are there differences that divide along party lines?
  • The “loony Left” and the psychology of Socialism/Leftism
    Philosophy is an anti-psychology and that is its essence and greatness. — StreetlightX

    That may be the way you regard it, but there have been many prominent philosophers both past and present who do not agree with you.
  • The “loony Left” and the psychology of Socialism/Leftism
    The center doesn't shift of its own accord. It shifts further and further to the left under pressure from the left. — Apollodorus

    It shifts in both directions. For example, many of Reagan's policies are now regarded as liberal.

    When conservatives are determined to "change the established order", the established order tends to be an order established either under pressure from the left opposition or under the rule of the left. — Apollodorus

    Right. The pendulum swings in both directions.

    I think it's the other way around. Rhetoric is an expression of political thought. — Apollodorus

    It is not one way or the other. Influence flows in both directions.
  • Esotericism: Hierarchy & Knowledge
    Yes, yes, yes!! Now you are starting to understand. But Socrates DENIES that. — god must be atheist

    He does not deny it. Plato makes it quite clear. He says that we find the Forms in the world of our experience unalloyed but mixed together.

    Now, take a Form. A chair. — god must be atheist

    The Greek term for Form is eidos. It means the kind of thing something is, the look or shape of a thing. Eidos is closely related to idea. So when you say "chair" and not some particular chair you are referring to its form, that which all chairs have in common.

    I agree that there are problems with the idea. The dialogue Parmenides discusses them.

    One can't both be one and not one at the same time. — god must be atheist

    This is what is know as the problem of the one and the many.
  • Esotericism: Hierarchy & Knowledge
    You just replaced one Ad Hominem argument with another. — god must be atheist

    Socrates is talking to and about Protarchus. So again, yes it is about this person, about what he says and does, but this is not to engage in a fallacy. If he objects to being likened to a sea urchin then there must be something more to him then just pleasure.

    you are this near to uttering a Strawman. — god must be atheist

    No, I am attempting avoid one, that he is anti-hedonist. That is not an assumption that you made. Good.

    But this still does not prove that a human being who has attained pleasure, gaiety, joy, etc., needs retrospection, wisdom, etc. This is the preference of Socrates. He can't prove, and does not even attempt to prove, that this is actually true for every human — god must be atheist

    The argument begins at 21a:

    Socrates
    Would you, Protarchus, be willing to live your whole life in the enjoyment of the greatest pleasures?

    Protarchus
    Of course I should.

    Socrates
    Would you think you needed anything further, if you were in complete possession of that enjoyment?

    Protarchus
    Certainly not.

    Socrates
    But consider whether you would not have some need of wisdom and intelligence and power of calculating your wants and the like.

    Protarchus
    Why should I? If I have enjoyment, I have everything.

    Socrates
    Then living thus you would enjoy the greatest pleasures all your life?

    Protarchus
    Yes; why not?

    Socrates
    But if you did not possess mind or memory or knowledge or true opinion, in the first place, you would not know whether you were enjoying your pleasures or not. That must be true, since you are utterly devoid of intellect, must it not?

    Protarchus
    Yes, it must.


    And likewise, if you had no memory you could not even remember that you ever did enjoy pleasure, and no recollection whatever of present pleasure could remain with you; if you had no true opinion you could not think you were enjoying pleasure at the time when you were enjoying it, and if you were without power of calculation you would not be able to calculate that you would enjoy it in the future; your life would not be that of a man, but of a mollusc or some other shell-fish like the oyster. Is that true, or can we imagine any other result?

    Protarchus
    We certainly cannot.

    Socrates
    And can we choose such a life?

    Protarchus
    This argument, Socrates, has made me utterly speechless for the present.

    Socrates
    Well, let us not give in yet. Let us take up the life of mind and scrutinize that in turn.

    Protarchus is not as skilled at arguing as he imagines himself to be. He agrees that he does not need anything other than pleasure, but is led to see that pleasure absent all else is not enough. Socrates then turns to the life of the mind. It is not about proving but persuading him to look beyond pleasure. The reasoning is not fallacious, it follows from the premise that pleasure without anything else is sufficient for the life of a human being. Now having said that, I do think there is a bit of manipulation on Socrates part when he gets Protarchus to agree with the premise that he needs nothing else.
  • Esotericism: Hierarchy & Knowledge
    There are kernel qualities. Qualities that have no component parts. — god must be atheist

    How do these differ from forms?

    Socrates claim seems to suggest that there are no combined qualities — god must be atheist

    They are found in combination in the world we live in, the world of our experience.
  • The “loony Left” and the psychology of Socialism/Leftism
    I'm not talking about "rhetorical ploys". — Apollodorus

    If we are talking about politics then we must talk about rhetorical ploys. It is important to see how much political rhetoric informs our views of politics.

    Historically, liberals were opposed to the ruling conservatives, and socialists to the ruling liberals or conservatives. That's why in historical terms the left stands for opposition to the established order. — Apollodorus

    Historically, these terms are not fixed. The center shifts and with it those who are on either side. Depending on the issue conservatives may be just as determined to change the established order as the liberals.
  • The “loony Left” and the psychology of Socialism/Leftism
    ↪frank


    The preferred terms these days are radical left, socialist (Trump throws in radical before socialist for good measure) and Marxist, and occasionally progressive, but progressive has positive connotations so is used less frequently.

    According to Peter Beinart:

    In America, what distinguishes leftists from liberals and progressives—as well as conservatives—is their commitment to radical equality. Leftists are more likely than liberals to argue that economic inequality renders America’s constitutional liberties hollow.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/democratic-party-moves-left/573946/
Home » Fooloso4