Either I’m in over my head or not. What was I wrong about? — NOS4A2

Start by researching the legal concepts of the presumption of innocence and probable cause.

First you would need to take your head out of your ass.

I’ll wait. — NOS4A2

Honestly, the sooner the better, but that is up to you. You seem to like the view.

How is it not? Show me how far I am in over my head. I don’t mind being corrected. — NOS4A2

First you would need to take your head out of your ass.

What did he say of the President of the United States?

“If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so.”

That’s a perversion of of the presumption of innocence. Mueller’s — NOS4A2

It is not. You are in over your head. You are throwing around legal terms now without any understanding of what they mean.

Breaking news I just learned that the White House locked down the transcripts from this Ukraine discussion on a special file server.... — 3017amen

Yes, this was discussed in the hearings today. Just another attempt by Trump to obstruct justice under the rubric of executive privilege.

Whatever the results of the investigations and the election, I think we will see explicit limits but on executive power. The Republicans may not go along if Trump is re-elected but certainly will if a Democrat is. They may go along sooner or later anyway because sooner or later a Democrat will be elected president and they certainly do not want a Democrat to be able to do what Trump is doing.

It’s not evidence of their guilt either. Investigations such as Mueller’s are not designed to prove innocence or exonerate anyone; they are to prove guilt. This is simple due process. — NOS4A2

Mueller was quite clear that he was not going to prove guilt for the very reason that without an indictment there could be no due process, and he had no intention of indicting. He left all that to Congress.

I do not believe in unjust and arbitrary investigations without probable cause ... — NOS4A2

It is evident that you do not understand what probable cause means. You are spinning in circles and digging yourself deeper and deeper into the hole you are trying to extricate yourself from. You may think the investigations unjust and arbitrary but saying so does not make it so.

mind is brain — lepriçok

In that case, mind is not in some separate realm but within the realm of matter.

So, we have micro-realms and cosmic realms that are connected this way: cosmic realm (conscious matter) - mind micro-realm (personal substance) - cosmic realm (unconscious matter). — lepriçok

There is a logical and evidential gap here. You have posited cosmic consciousness but claiming that there is such a thing does not mean that there is such a thing. You have posited conscious and unconscious matter but have not shown that there are two kinds of matter. If, for example, you claim that the brain is conscious matter it does not follow that there are two kinds of matter. It may be, that the difference is the organization of matter, that when matter is organized in one way we get unconscious things like rocks and when organized in another way we get brains.

X is dependent on Y, but it is not dependent simply notionally, it is dependent ontologically, without Y there would be no X. When he defines substance as "that which is in itself" he does not mean that it is contained in itself, but, as you say, it is not dependent on anything else. It follows that everything that is dependent on it is not what it is in itself but in light of or as a consequence of or dependent on something else.

Looking for examples must fail because there are no examples of Y. Anything that serves as an example must be an example of some X, that is, some dependent thing.

Americans were arrested for the “any other matters that arise from the investigation”, unrelated to Russian interference, collusion, spying, influencing the elections. — NOS4A2

They are not unrelated. The problem is that, as the report states and I said above, the relationship could not be legally established by the investigation because of obstruction of justice and the limits of the investigation.

This is why so many have pushed for an impeachment investigation. The constraints under which the Mueller investigation operated no longer apply.

I repeat, not a single American was charged or indicted on the core conspiracy theory of whether there was any conspiracy or coordination with Russia over the election — NOS4A2

And I repeat, this is not evidence of their innocence. Trump has done everything he can to prevent any investigation into his activities. He can call it fishing expedition but it seems highly unlikely that he would try to prevent the investigations if he was not worried about who might get caught.

You might think it is all a hoax, but whether or not it is cannot be determined without an investigation, and, tellingly, you and Trump would like nothing more than to prevent the investigations from proceeding.

One more point: the idea that a sitting president should not be indicted is based on the concern that this would take up too much of his time and energy and prevent him from doing his job. But Trump has and will continue to spend a great deal of time and energy suppressing any and all investigations.

Cognition is both a function and an action. The function emerges from the mind, but acts on and of reality, by doing something to it, perceiving how it changes, observing the laws, relating to it, connecting onto it an so on. There is much more in cognition than a function, concealed in a mind-box. Mind is connection, intention, relation and so on. There is an object, the subject and some process bridging them. Now, I hope, I have expressed the thought more clearly. Everything else follows from this. Misunderstanding occurred only because our boundaries of perception and concepts are different. However, sense and absurdity is not polarized by mere difference in individual perception. — lepriçok

You have missed the point. It is not a question of whether cognition is a function or an action or both. You claimed that reality has three main realms, mind, external matter and the process of their cognition. The process of cognition is a mental process, not something separate and distinct from mind.

Your night in shining armor, Mueller, waged a massive fishing expedition, and arrested exactly zero Americans for the crimes of Russian collusion to influence the election, any crimes related to helping Russia, which you conspiracy theorists went on about for years. — NOS4A2

Mueller is hardly my knight in shining armor. He was guided by precedent not law. He assiduously refused to state conclusions. This was certainly to Trump's benefit even if not for his benefit. I am of two minds about this. On the one hand I understand the reasoning behind it, but on the other, by ignoring established custom and indicted Trump he would have been free to state allegations.

Calling it a fishing expedition distorts the facts. If it were a fishing expedition it would be catch and release, but Mueller refused to even make accusations because he thought it unfair to Trump to do so since Trump could not provide a legal defense unless he was indicted.

You cling to the non-legal term "collusion" as if it were a life-savor. Manafort, Gates, Cohen, and other close associates of Trump were found guilty of or admitted to crimes related to Trump's election, including obstruction of justice.

The Mueller report stated that it did not find sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities", but this must be viewed in light of 1) the administrations efforts to suppress information and 2) Mueller's refusal to make accusations that Trump could not defend against since a sitting president could not be indicted. The fact that they did not find sufficient evidence does not mean that they did not find any evidence.

I think the Mueller report was an anti-Trump witch hunt. I’m not ok with it because no one was convicted of the non-crime of Russian collusion for which they were being investigated. It was an unjust fishing expedition. — NOS4A2

This is feckless. The title of of the report is: "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election". There was ample evidence of Russian interference. There were convictions based on the investigation, including close associates of Trump. The introduction to V olume II makes clear why Trump was not indicted. Contrary to what Trump claimed, he was not exonerated. To the contrary, the report states:

The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

If it were a witch-hunt they would not have been prevented from reaching the conclusion that he was guilty. Mueller played by the book, providing information and leaving it to others to reach conclusions. That is not how a witch-hunt works. But Trump without any evidence declares it a witch-hunt and you as a true believer repeat his words as if they are an incantation to ward off evil. Never mind what the report actually says, Trump declares it a "witch-hunt", "fake news", "a hoax", "a fishing expedition", and the faithful repeat his words and believe that to be the end of the matter. In the words of your lord and savior: sad.

I approve of the approach taken by Saint John's College - a critical reading and discussion of the "great books". One learns to read to read a book by way of example and interpretative practice under the guidance of more advanced students or tutors, based on the assumption that the books themselves are the teachers.

One thing Adler does not mention is learning how to ask questions of a text and listen for the answers. In line with this is noting apparent contradictions and figuring out how the author reconciles them or how these contradictions point to a higher level of understanding beyond the contradictions. The assumption here is that if we can see the contradictions they have not gone unnoticed by the greatest minds.

Our reality has three main realms: mind, external matter and the process of their cognition. — lepriçok

This makes no sense. There can be no cognition without mind and there are strong arguments suggesting that without matter there can be no mind. That mind is a realm of reality is a questionable assertion. The positing of mind as if it were a fundamental aspect of reality independent of rather than a feature of some animals is a metaphysical assumption. That is to say, a creation of the human mind.

When cognition connects mind and matter ... — lepriçok

Cognition does not connect mind and matter. Cognition is a function of the mind.

... reality is converted into information, having a form of scientific notation. — lepriçok

In general, modern science is mathematized, but information is not a conversion of reality into something else. For example, if a meteorologist tells me it is raining, that information is not a conversion of the fact that it is raining but rather a report of that fact. Dark cloudy skies may provide me with the information that it is going to rain, but that is not a conversion into a form of scientific notation. Long before the advent of modern science people knew how to read that information.

The product of cognition process is knowledge which has a quantitative characteristic. — lepriçok

Some knowledge is quantitative but other knowledge is not.

If the entire reality is 100% ... — lepriçok

This is a nonsensical statement. Is some reality not "100%"? 100% what, real?

On the other hand, I do not think this is possible, and before reaching the goal, humanity would self-destroy. — lepriçok

Ancient mythologies recognized that knowledge is a double edged. It brings with it both benefit and harm.

The reasons are the degradation of moral values — lepriçok

Are you claiming that knowledge degrades moral values or that moral values can limit the destructive power of knowledge?

What is the highest possible level of scientific achivement, before things going south to us? Is it possible to avoid this fate? — lepriçok

It may be that scientific achievement will be what keeps things from going further south. The most obvious example is global warming. Science has certainly contributed to the problem, but I see no way of solving the problem without advances in technology. Further, it is only because of science that we are even aware of the problem and the extent of the problem.

27:

Knowing, as it is at first, or, as immediate spirit, is devoid of spirit, is sensuous consciousness. In order to become genuine knowing, or, in order to beget the element of science which is its pure concept, immediate spirit must laboriously travel down a long path.

Immediate spirit is devoid of spirit because it is consciousness of something other, that is, it is not self-consciousness. The path from consciousness of what is other to self-consciousness is the development of genuine knowing.

28:

However, the task of leading the individual from his culturally immature standpoint up to and into science had to be taken in its universal sense, and the universal individual, the world spirit, had to be examined in the development of its cultural education.

The universal individual, the world spirit, is not any particular individual:

... the particular individual is an incomplete spirit, a concrete shape whose entire existence falls into one determinateness and in which the other features are only present as intermingled traits.

The universal individual is one formed by the development of Western culture. Although genuine knowing involves both subject and object and is in that sense subjective, it is not a matter of whatever any particular individual declares or thinks or believes. It is universal subjectivity. But it is not simply a matter of consensus, that is, what is true is not so because most or all at any given time take it to be true.

In any spirit that stands higher than another, the lower concrete existence has descended to the status of an insignificant moment; what was formerly at stake is now only a trace; its shape has been
covered over and has become a simple shading of itself. The individual whose substance is spirit standing at the higher level runs through these past forms in the way that a person who takes up a higher science goes through those preparatory studies which he has long ago internalized in order to make their content current before him; he calls them to mind without having his interest linger upon them.

Each stage of development is secondary to the completion of the movement of spirit. By way of analogy, one's first steps are of momentous importance but cease to be important as one learns to walk and run. Hegel is not minimizing the importance of what those before him have accomplished. Their accomplishments, however, have become internalized, part of one's cultural education. However great the accomplishments of Plato or Kant or Newton or anyone else, they are only moments in the development of knowledge and the world spirit. Although we may never accomplish what they did we are able to see further than they by standing on their shoulders.

In that way, each individual spirit also runs through the culturally formative stages of the universal
spirit, but it runs through them as shapes which spirit has already laid aside, as stages on a path that has been worked out and leveled out in the same way that we see fragments of knowing, which in earlier ages occupied men of mature minds, now sink to the level of exercises, and even to that of games for children. In this pedagogical progression, we recognize the history of the cultural formation of the world sketched in silhouette. This past existence has already become an acquired possession of the universal spirit; it constitutes the substance of the individual, or, his inorganic nature. – In this respect, the cultural formation of the individual regarded from his own point of view consists in his acquiring all of this which is available, in his living off that inorganic nature and in his taking possession of it for himself.

Our inorganic nature is our spiritual nature. We are as we are not because of some timeless and invariant human nature or individual particularity. It is as it is because our spiritual nature is cultural and historical. The " cultural formation of the individual regarded from his own point of view" appears to be a matter of what he or she acquires on his own, but:

... this is nothing but the universal spirit itself, or, substance giving itself its self-consciousness, or, its coming-to-be and its reflective turn into itself.

It is not the individual person but the instantiation or indwelling of spirit manifest in the individual.

Standard disclaimer: Everything here is tentative and subject to correction.

... properly represent my arguments — NOS4A2

“Mueller mueller mueller”, “impeach impeach impeach”.

Dem playbook. — NOS4A2

Is this a proper representation of your arguments?

It has been amusing seeing you flounder around but I have wasted enough time responding to your inept attempts to defend Trump.

What does Mueller have to do with it? — NOS4A2

I think you know, and your continued attempts at obfuscation only make you look more and more ridiculous.

I already said that if the transcript was true, the allegations are refuted. — NOS4A2

What allegations are refuted if the transcript is true? The transcript, even if unedited, is not the whole of the story. The phone call is only the latest in a long list of questionable behavior. Don't bother asking again what list. Much of it was detailed in the Mueller report, but you seem to be confused as to what the report has to do with any of this. Or perhaps you have just taken another page from the Trump playbook and "deny, deny, deny".

You have merely repeated the claims of Democrats. — NOS4A2

So, you ask what he did wrong to warrant an investigation but disregard the allegations of the very people who are investigating him. But even if you are incapable of seeing the lapse in logic, Mueller is not a Democrat. A fact that Trump and his lap dogs have done everything they can to obscure.

You cover your eyes and ears and claim there is nothing to see or hear.

Your arguments have become more and more tenuous. I would say that you need to step up your game, but it appears that you have already overplayed your hand. In this case I cannot agree with Leiber and Stoller or Peggy Lee - if that's all there is then stop dancing.

BTW, why, I forgot to ask you, why didn't Trump give a personal interview/testimony during the Muller report? — 3017amen

From what I read, Trump was willing. No doubt he thinks he can talk his way out of anything. If it is was only his personal lawyers who prevented him from doing so that would be one thing, but if they were not then this raises grave questions of where their loyalty lies - with Trump or with the country. They know that Trump cannot keep his mouth shut, that he is a compulsive liar, and that he would both perjure and betray himself if given the opportunity.

There has to be something Trump may have done in order for him to be guilty or not guilty of it. What is it? — NOS4A2

You are dancing around while trying to ignore the mounting evidence that an investigation is warranted, and more and more it appears to a Saint Vitus dance. Several of us have pointed to reasons why he should be investigated. Since it is evident that you have nothing substantive to add I am not going to continue indulging you.

It seems likely that whatever happens you will attempt to spin it to protect Trump. When he said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue no doubt he had those like you in mind.

I suspect you don’t know at all. Once again, there has to first be a crime until someone can be guilty or not guilty of it. — NOS4A2

An impeachable offense need not be a crime. Whatever it is you think you know, you should know this if you wish to carry on an informed discussion.

When we accuse someone of high crimes and misdemeanors there must be high crimes and misdemeanors with which to accuse him. — NOS4A2

I suspect you know better. One does not first have to be found guilty before an investigation is opened into whether or not he is guilty.

You cannot just impeach a political figure for no reason!!! — NOS4A2

Trump has not been impeached and it seems likely that he will not be, but that has little to do with whether or not he is guilty. As has been pointed out, there is plenty of evidence leading to the need for an investigation, but you close your eyes and ears and pretend that an innocent man is going to be impeached "for no reason!!!".

What are the high crimes and misdemeanors? — NOS4A2

Once again, that is something that cannot be established before the investigation into what they may be has been completed. We do not yet have the full story and if Trump has his way we never will. And that in itself is a crime, to wit: obstruction of justice.

The parts about “pressure” (Ukrainian President just said there was no pressure), — NOS4A2

Are you that naive or simple-minded or just disingenuous? He has to curry Trump's favor. Of course he is not going to contradict him!

withholding funding funding (a routine job of the president) — NOS4A2

Again I must ask if you that naive or simple-minded or just disingenuous? It is anything but routine for a president to without military funds allocated by Congress for personal political purposes. If we look at Trump's reasons for doing so we don't get a straight answer from him.

I just read the Washington Post. Looks like the whistleblower did not base their concern on that call. There were other calls.....Trump's in trouble now. — 3017amen

I think we will just have to wait to see how things develop before concluding that Trump is in trouble now. Even if there is ample and damning evidence, unless the Senate decides to take action the consequences remain unclear. It will be up to the voters. If there are enough from the key states who believe he has made America great again, they will ignore or minimize the importance of whatever is uncovered.

So no crime and no probable cause that he committed a crime. Just an arbitrary impeachment inquiry. — NOS4A2

How do you know that there has been no crime and no probable cause for an investigation? If he did nothing wrong and there is nothing to hide then why stonewall? Mueller was quite clear that he would not indict a sitting president, but that there were serious improprieties that should be investigated by Congress. In addition, several people working for Trump were indicted, tried, found guilty, and sent to jail. Mueller''s testimony was sufficient to lead some who were opposed to impeachment to change their minds. Others remained opposed, but not because they found no evidence of wrongdoing but because of political considerations and the consequences of the Senate refusing to impeach. Many more changed their minds in the last few days when it came to light that Trump, without proper authorization from Congress, withheld military funding to Ukraine to pressure them to investigate his Democratic opponent. The whistleblower's information appears to extend beyond the phone call. Trump tried to prevent him from testifying but the Senate was unanimous in passing a resolution that he must be allowed to testify before Senate and House Intelligence Committees.

Then what crimes or misdemeanours is he being accused of? — NOS4A2

Once again, that is what the investigation intends to uncover. Following the Trump playbook you want to declare that such an investigation is unnecessary, as if he cannot be found guilty because if he was he would already have been found guilty, now hurry up and declare the case closed lest something be found.

Investigations of Trump and impeachment rumblings have been occurring since before Trump was even in office. How long are you allowed to kick the can down that road before I’m allowed to suspect you really have nothing. — NOS4A2

You are "allowed" to suspect whatever you want, but when you say:

... the non-crimes Trump allegedly committed — NOS4A2

you are making a factual, if ambiguous, claim. He is not being accused of non-crimes. An impeachment investigation is into high crimes and misdemeanors. We really do not know the extent of what he has done. That is the purpose of the investigation. What we do know is that he is doing everything he can to keep the truth from coming to light. This alone is enough to raise suspicion that he is trying to hide something.

Of course corruption should be looked into. Why are you guys dismissing the possible corruption of Biden in favor of the non-crimes Trump allegedly committed? It’s so odd. — NOS4A2

First, I have not dismissed "the possible corruption of Biden". The ambiguity regarding which Biden the accusations are aimed at should not be overlooked. What I said was:

Even if Hunter Biden and those who hired him are guilty of some unnamed impropriety, this does not exonerate Trump.

The investigation into Trump is underway but already you have determined that Trump did not commit any crimes. Once again:

This is nothing more than a childish and inept diversion tactic.

To be clear, I am referring here not just to Trump but to you.

According to the transcript the favor was actually regarding “the server” which I suspect is the Hacked DNC server — NOS4A2

Accord to the transcript the favor was:

... to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine ...

Trump then mentions CrowdStrike, but Adam Meyer's, vice president of intelligence at CrowdStrike, is as puzzled as everyone else as to what Trump was talking about. The cyber-security firm found that Russia hacked the DNC server. Trump's own Justice Department confirmed this, but Trump would prefer that there be a conspiracy with a missing server. Only there is no evidence to support his conspiracy theory. Trump then goes on to talk about the "very good prosecutor" who was shut down, suggesting that this was part of the cover up of "this whole situation".

He mentioned Biden only in passing — NOS4A2

What the transcript says is:

The other thing,There's a lot of. talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution ...

That goes far beyond mentioning him in passing. The claim is that Biden stopped the prosecution. That puts him in the middle of "this whole situation".

Hunter Biden ... — NOS4A2

So, Biden is mentioned "only in passing" but you think this is something that should be looked into. Whether or not it should be looked into, and by whom, it does not change the fact that there is an inquiry into Trump. Even if Hunter Biden and those who hired him are guilty of some unnamed impropriety, this does not exonerate Trump. This is nothing more than a childish and inept diversion tactic.

The transcript is only part of a larger story. According to the transcript Trump says:

I heard you had a prosecutor who· was very·good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved.

A lot of people are talking about Viktor Shokin, Ukraine’s prosecutor general., but most reports, including a push by the International Monetary Fund to investigate and prosecute those guilty of corruption, claim that Shokin did not do his job effectively. There is no substantive evidence that Shokin was fired, as Trump claims, to protect Biden or his son.

It is clear that Trump ordered almost $400 million in military aid to the Ukraine to be withheld. It is also clear that Trump has told conflicting stories about why he did this and that these stories do not match the facts.

Of course Trump's defenders want to pretend that the transcript is evidence that Trump did nothing wrong and once again declare the case is closed. It is not. Just what the impeachment investigation will uncover is an open question, one that Trump is doing everything he can to block from seeing the light of day.

↪Fooloso4 The point we agree on is that the role of justice in ethics is prior to, or higher than, or of more import than, the role of piety or divine will or... pretty much anything.

Is that right? — Banno

Yes, it is.

We are agreed on the measure of Bartrinks as well.

Well, I think it might help to make sense of the distinction between 'necessary' and 'contingent' being. — Wayfarer

Yes, I agree, but that is not a distinction I find helpful unless when reading those who make use of it. One must accept the notion of a necessary being.

Added: That is, one must accept the notion of a necessary being in order to make such distinctions. I do not.

Justice stands above piety.
— Fooloso4

That's the point. The dialogue is remembered for it's attack on god when it should be remembered for its support for equity. — Banno

As I read it, Socrates' concern is with justice, but that what justice is leads to aporia. It is an example of Socratic or zetetic skepticism. I have never interpreted it as an attack on god but an attack on Euthyphro's assumption of wisdom regarding divine things.

Although Socrates does raise the question of the justice of the gods according to the stories of the poets, such questions are not unique to him, as Euthyphro's responses make clear.

I have never come across anyone competent in such matters who refers to the Euthyphro dilemma as "the Euthyphro". Have you? In any case, it is evident that neither the dialogue nor the dilemma have been understood by someone who relies on bar tricks instead of careful reading, scholarship, and reasoned argument.

Knowledge, or more precisely, the assumption of knowledge and wisdom is at the forefront of the dialogue. Socrates brings into question the knowledge and wisdom of Meletus for indicting Socrates on charges of corrupting the youth. The conversation quickly turns to Euthyphro's own knowledge and wisdom in bringing charges against his father. In both cases the question of guilt or innocence is left to the jury to decide, which raises questions regarding their own wisdom.

Euthyphro claims to be acting not on his own authority but on the authority of the gods. But in doing so he is appealing to his own authority on divine matters. What he is doing is right because it is what the gods demand of men.

What is at issue is whether Euthyphro has knowledge of divine matters, that is, whether he is an authority on the divine. If Euthyphro is not an authority on such matters, and no one else is either, then the question of the gods' authority is called into question. For how can man appeal to the gods authority if he lacks knowledge of the gods?

Socrates eventually turns from the question of piety to that of justice, for the pious is part of justice (12d). Socrates asks what part it is. Euthyphro's response is revealing. He says:

I think, Socrates, that the godly and pious is the part of the just that is concerned with the care of the gods, while that concerned with the care of men is the remaining part of justice. (12e)

The part of justice that is concerned with the care of men is left unaddressed. If piety is part of justice than what he is doing cannot be pious if it is not just. Appeal to piety is insufficient grounds for establishing the justice of his actions.

Justice stands above piety. Socrates' words and actions might be seen as impious or atheistic, but if it can be shown that what he says and does is guided by his care for men, then either piety and justice are at odds or what is truly pious must be determined by what is just. Although the question of justice is not addressed, it looms over the dialogue.

↪Fooloso4 I'd be interested in any comments on the passage I quoted above (and the article it comes from). I think the notion that there are 'degrees of reality' is important in this, because it allows for the conception of things that are more and less real. Whereas, for us, 'existence' is univocal, something either exists or doesn't. — Wayfarer

I thought it was very good. I almost cited it in my response. As to degrees of reality, I think it is important for understanding the ontology of those who make use of it, but it is not a concept that I agree with.

The ancients assumed that reason would lead us all to the same understanding. But their criterion was not ‘objectivity’ in the modern sense - the ideas of objectivity and for that matter subjectivity have changed considerably in the transition to modernity. The Eclipse of Reason discusses this in detail. — Wayfarer

This is an important point. One that I raised earlier:

The Greek understanding of reason is significantly different from modern versions. — Fooloso4

The irony here is that while appealing to reason Bartricks has demonstrated that he is incapable of reasoned thought and argument, relying instead on insults and personal attacks.

All finite and divisible things are a product of the imagination, which means that plurality, finiteness and divisibility are all illusory. — bobobor

Does Spinoza say this? In the quote from the letter to Meyer Spinoza is not talking about things in the world but measure, duration, and how many. It does not follow that the things that measured and counted are products of the imagination.


From the letter to Meyer:

The modifications of substance I call modes. Their definition, in so far as it is not identical with that of substance, cannot involve any existence. Hence, we can conceive them as non-existent. From this it follows, that, when we are regarding only the essence of modes, and not the order of the whole of nature, we cannot conclude from their present existence, that they will exist or not exist in the future, or that they have existed or not existed in the past; whence it is abundantly clear, that we conceive the existence of substance as entirely different from the existence of modes.

I don't believe you. Teaching intro to philosophy - hahahahaha. Yeah, to your bathroom mirror. — Bartricks

Believe what you want. It is not something I usually bring up on the forum since I would rather be judged by what I say rather than by my credentials. There are, however, a few here who know enough about me to know the truth.

I don't see any value in continuing this. If you were not blinded by your assumptions you would find that there are other points that I brought up that you either ignored or more likely did not understand.

Do you know what 'paraphrase' means? — Bartricks

The first definition that pops up when you Google it:

verb
express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.

You are not expressing Plato's meaning. As I said, the issue is justice not reason.

And have you read the actual dialogue? — Bartricks

I certainly have.That is how I knew it was about justice not reason. In fact, I used it when teaching intro to philosophy many times. Which leads me to wonder whether you have read it.

Er, yes. And it is the Euthyphro problem that I am interested in here. Like I said!! Can you read? — Bartricks

Er, well you continually refer to "the Euthyphro".

To paraphrase Socrates in the Euthyphro ... — Bartricks

This is not a paraphrase, it is a misunderstanding of Plato's dialogue.

The Greek understanding of reason is significantly different from modern versions. In any case, Socrates question is about justice not reason. The dialogue, like many of his others, ends in aporia. Reason does not provide an answer.

The dialogue and what came to be known as the Euthyphro problem are two different things.

Trump is attempting to block California from setting its own higher standards for auto emissions. He has also rejected higher standards for fuel economy. Why? The auto industry is preparing to meet those higher standards, so it is not for their benefit. In fact the uncertainty hurts them.

When looked at in light of his rollback of other environment protections it becomes clear that his intention is to render the EPA ineffectual. But it is not just the EPA, it is part of a larger scheme to dismantle the "administrative state" piece by piece. At the same time he moves to increase executive power and shield it from oversight. Republicans seem to approve, but will sing a very different tune when the Democrats occupy the White House.