Just like a Disney movie for children. — Jackson

Yes! Disney films are beautiful so why do you sneer? Do you think it grown up and clever to be miserable and unpleasant? It isn't.

Meaning, purpose and use refer forward. For the religious, life refers forward to an afterlife or an eternal life. But for the irreligious, there is nothing for life to refer or create to that is beyond it that can give it a purpose, use, function, or meaning.

One can only therefore consider it as having decorative value. So try not to put ugly posts here chaps, it lowers the tone, spoils the pattern. We are born and die like flowers, so try to look pretty and smell nice if you can, while you can. Don't expect meaning, but go for beauty.

Logic is really bad at doing time. Truths have to be eternal. That p is an unknown truth is unknowable until p is known, and then it is not an unknown truth. the difficulty arises because knowability implies time.

Suppose p is a sentence that is an unknown truth — Fitch's paradox of knowability

This is the heart of darkness - suppose we know something that we suppose we do not know. "the 79 squillionth decimal iteration of pi is a '2'." Well do we know or don't we? Make up your mind, Fitch. The digit is knowable, but 'that it it 2' is knowable only if it happens to be 2, which we don't know. p0, p1... p9 - one of them is an unknown truth, and the others are unknown falsehoods.

Suppose what you cannot even in principle know... arrive at a paradox... everyone gasps at your cleverness.

Yes, it is silly to deny the body is not you. — Josh Alfred

Too many negatives there, or not enough.

But the way the self functions is much more than an undeniable fact. I am this body and you are that body, and so it is a matter of convenience that you look after that body and I look after this one. But this creates the self in thought. The self in thought makes itself the centre of all thought and becomes an inside that relates to the outside. Or rather it becomes the inside. I am the inside and you are now part of my outside. So now it is not a matter of convenience, but the central fact of life that this is the important body, and that one does not matter so much (to me, at least).

The non-self that is not-you has privileged access X and the non-self that is not-me has privileged access Y, but are otherwise non-self. This difference in access is... That is where I am lost. — Ennui Elucidator

We play peek-a-boo with babies to teach them that people that disappear do not cease to exist, and yet we have the same difficulty understanding that bodies that we do not feel suffer pain and hunger just as significant as this body's. That awareness is empty, means that it is always the same awareness that looks out through a philosopher's eyes, her husband's eyes or her cat's eyes; because the self is a superficial illusion produced by the limitations of the senses, the reality is that there is no 'other'.

Inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these my children, ye do unto me. — Jesus

I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together — The Beatles

I'm just average, common too
I'm just like him, the same as you
I'm everybody's brother and son
I ain't different than anyone
It ain't no use a-talking to me
It's just the same as talking to you — bobDylan

The thing is though, if this is just a theory I sort of understand from the outside as it were, it seems complicated, extravagant, and in the end unimportant. It is only if it explodes and replaces my whole identification as the wonderful chap that posts interesting stuff on philosophy forums and grows peas and beetroot in his garden: then it transforms, because death becomes seen as a very minor affair - this body dies, but all my other bodies continue and reproduce and die in turn, and all the world's suffering and all its joy and beauty are mine forever. One eye closes and another eye opens.

We the Philosophers of pf, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ... do establish a forever war against @Streetlight and @Isaac, in order that they might put aside their differences to unite against us.

You gotta love the " secure the Blessings of Liberty" bit. 'Catching running water in a bucket' comes to mind.

Them? I've tried talking to them...

Once upon a time there was peace.

The tools of security are weapons, restraints, and surveillance. They are designed for the denial of freedom. Security consists in the limitation of freedom. Freedom consists in the limitation of security. The tools of freedom are good education and mental and physical health.

Thus a war of liberation is a rare and fabulous beast. If there is anywhere one might justifiably pursue a war of liberation, I suggest N. Korea would be the place. And saying that is an indication of how costly, onerous, and precarious a war of liberation would be, if any country had the selflessness and moral fibre to make such an undertaking.

In practice, wars always emerge from simple fact that our security is incompatible with their freedom, and vice versa; winners gain in security, and losers lose freedom.
"Us" and "them" are also fabulous beasts created by propaganda working on fear. Fear of the other's freedom feeds the need for security. The other is different, unreasonable, vicious, immoral, unscrupulous, duplicitous, and above all dangerous. We are the opposite. As soon as we are united in our virtue, we are ready for war.

the violence you perform on others will be done to you. — Jackson

How does this work for multiple murderers, for example? On the face of it, there is bound to be a discrepancy. You know, you drop a bomb on Hiroshima, and have to die a few thousand deaths...

How about: There's nothing wrong with taking side, and nothing wrong with not taking side? Live and let live. — Olivier5

I think you must mean 'live and let die.' And I'll leave you to spot what's wrong with that.

You really love to fight, don't you. You see fight everywhere. It is rather amusing, that I cannot disagree with your claim that I am aggressive without appearing aggressive to you. This is actually your confusion, not mine. And I'll have to leave you to it.

Your neutrality is totally fake, inasmuch as you condemn people taking side, and that is in itself a form of taking side. — Olivier5

Which side am I on? (hint: there is no such thing as an army of pacifists)

Folks make analogies with WW2 and the fight against fascism. But to me it is a false analogy. Both in the trench war and artillery attrition, and in the causes and leadership, this is a reprise of WW1. Clowns for leaders, bankrupt ideologies for causes, and no possible positive result for anyone. Putting the kibosh on the Kaiser is well worth being blown to pieces in the mud for. Not.

It's not a fight about freedom, but a fight about security; a fight amongst bullies for domination.

I didn't say I was comfortable with war, but with making a moral distinction between an aggressor and his victim. That much should be obvious. — Olivier5

You said it in response to my post not particularly addressed to you, pointing out that to make that distinction was to enter the war. which you did not argue against or contradict. You have joined the war, you complain at being badly treated, and you are comfortable with that. Your comfort is no comfort to me.

I'm personally quite comfortable with taking side, in this case and in many others where there's a clear aggressor. There's no moral symmetry that I can see here. — Olivier5

The symmetry is between the way you see it and the way your opponents see it. But to be comfortable with war is assuredly to be a good long way from it. One may have to choose a side, one may have to fight, but to find it comfortable is unconscionable.

No one can have a fight on their own. It takes two. Assigning blame is taking sides.

that natural persons are born innocent. — Wayfarer

More so, I object to the notion that innocence is any kind of virtue, or bestows any kind of entitlement. It is no achievement and merits no reward, not even temporary existence, for which and to which it already owes its life.

the mark of what I mean by voodoo economics is that money is made for the market makers at the expense of the real economy. So junk bonds, asset-stripping, war-profiteering, etc, as distinct from straight economics where there is production or services that folks want. The cost is paid in social cohesion, social provision, and trust in social institutions. Sooner or later collapse of such a system is inevitable, and the trick is to emigrate with one's stash before the guillotines are activated.

“ineptness”. — ArielAssante

The tradition has been to favour the theory of cockup over conspiracy. But times have changed, and although partly we are seeing the shit that has always been going down but we didn't know it, because internet, we are also subject to voodoo economics and voodoo politics. It used to be that 'divide and rule' was the rule, but now it's become 'divide and exploit chaos'. The social capital of the last couple of millennia is being squandered for a momentary advantage in the coming total collapse of civilisation. The masses are no longer needed because robots are cheaper, so they are being scrapped.
They're all going to fight for freedom until they're all dead.

I suspect that Russia is not included in Russel's 'domination of the White Man'
— unenlightened

I don't see why it should be. — Apollodorus

Only the skin colour.

The domination of the White Man over the rest of the world since the sixteenth century is coming to an end. It will not go on any more in Asia which is awake. [...]
India belongs naturally to other Asiatic countries rather than western. Her ties with Britain are more artificial than her ties with China. The domination of the White Man over the rest of the world since the sixteenth century is coming to an end. It will not go on any more in Asia which is awake. I am convinced of that. Our domination came into being as a result partly of our voyages, partly by a skilful use of commerce and partly as a result of science. As India develops industrially she will also develop as a military power.
It is for Indians themselves to settle their differences. It is not any of our business. I should, therefore, announce that twelve months after the Japanese war we shall abandon our responsibilities for India. I do not think we ought to insist on Dominion Status. The idea that India should become a dominion is futile and quite contrary to her geographical necessity. Other dominions had historical affinity with us, but India culturally has not and will not belong to us. Her affinity will be with Asiatic countries. Her history and culture are contrary to ours.
The era of White domination will not last. It cannot be revived. White domination has made it impossible for a stable world. You cannot have peace in the world secured as long as some people want to keep themselves in power. There will be hundred and one injustices in the world as a result of this domination. The other side has a feeling of hatred and contempt for those who dominate. Until you get approximately an equal standard in East and West you cannot go on.

Bertrand Russell, Promise Freedom to India after War with Japan, Bombay Chronicle, 10 March 1945

When a philosopher's vision extends over several centuries, one must not quibble if his predictions are a little slow in coming to complete fruition. I suspect that Russia is not included in Russel's 'domination of the White Man', but is part of 'the rest of the world'. And I suspect he had not given enough scrutiny to the American White Man either.

There is a not terribly old expression of uncertain origin: -- "To the privileged, equality can feel like oppression."
Which one can turn around. To the oppressed, equality feels like a privilege.

But life is complex, and everyone is to an extent privileged and to an extent oppressed. One might feel one's privilege and be grateful, or in the same circumstances, feel one's oppression and be resentful. It is more pleasant to feel grateful than resentful, I find.

Thanks.

That's a really useful analysis by the old Greek. So it would be silly to deny that these are my hands and this little cut on my thumb is an irritation for me,that I need to keep clean and no one else need be concerned with at all (except for the purposes of philosophical illustration); whereas the opinions of me had by others are their own business, and I do not need to keep them clean at all, though I might offer them a cloth, as it were, in passing.

Although, in practice, If Putin thinks you're a nazi, or Biden thinks you're a traitor, you might want to be somewhat more concerned.

I quoted what and who I was responding to, which was Ennui and you. Why is that not already clear from my original quoting? Look I don't understand what your problem is, and I'm not going to continue this unless you can explain it. I have apologised for upsetting you and assure you that it was completely unintentional and I still have no idea at what you have taken offence. I can say no more.

I honestly don't know what your problem is. I'm contributing to the thread topic along with you, and I think we are discussing it together with other people. If I have offended you, I apologise, and I will not quote you in future as it seems to be problematic.

Colluding with Russia's interference in US elections — 180 Proof

Ah, the fragility of democracy is so vulnerable to truth isn't it? One cannot chose fairly between liars when one of them is exposed.

Are you rolling your eyes or wagging your finger at me? I may have misquoted and multiplied the misattributions, but it's the only citation in the thread. Be thankful for small mercies.

Since when has it been illegal for foreigners to collude with foreign powers?

the best legend — Olivier5

"And then they suck your brains out through your ear."

That is indeed the question! I am talking to myself in another body. :grin:

But in practice, I quoted you quoting Ennui, and commenting in a direct way.

My assertion that the self strikes me as fundamental was rejected by unenlightened,
— Ennui Elucidator

Well, since you have mentioned Vedanta we can look into what they might say.They may ask, what self is fundamental? — skyblack

Well since you invoke my name, I'll risk one more explanation of my pov. In common with probably most folk and most philosophers, I take awareness to be fundamental, and awareness of awareness be the full flowering. So being aware of the awareness that one fundamentally is, one can easily say what it is.

Well perhaps you can, but I find I can only describe awareness as having the characteristic of emptiness; it is like an empty stage on which experiences of body and environment and others are played out.As soon as there is any dressing up of this emptiness, I am not talking about awareness any more, but what I am aware of - the scenery, not the stage.

The self is one of the players and part of the play or scene, precisely because it is identified as being something/someone. Once that is rejected, it is simply obvious that awareness is everywhere the same emptiness, and we are like bubbles in a foam of life.

This all seems very straightforward and obvious in theory, but one never gets very far with it because one is always trying to explain to folks that think they are actors playing lead roles in a melodrama, that they are just part of the audience. "I don't wish to know that, kindly leave the stage."

I don't see how this avoids agency. Absolutely, the I that is me has privileged access to the stuff that is me whereas my I lacks such access to the stuff that is you (outside of what I can observe about you or what you disclose to me). — Ennui Elucidator

Well you have described the state of affairs; What "I" has access to is identified with, and that 'makes the difference between us. It's not much of a difference - I'm here identified with this body, and you're over there; I have the experience and memories of this body and you of that.

What has dropped out of contention entirely is consciousness. Ask what makes your consciousness separate from mine, we have recourse to the contents of consciousness, what we have access to - awareness and awareness of being aware have left the building, and all we have is distinct privileged access, otherwise we seem to be indistinguishable. But on that basis, I am not the same at night as I am during the day - the experiences are quite different.

How disappointing! Not a single source has been cited, leaving the reader with unsubstantiated opinions on all sides. It's almost as if there are no hard and fast rules, and while some people like to be referred here and there to related material, others want it all laid in front of them ,and some take it as it comes, or leave it where it lies...

The moving finger wags, and having wagged, moves on

The Autobiography of God: Daniel 5:5 (Omar Khayyam edition)

There is stuff.
There is an assemblage of stuff amongst stuff that is aware of stuff.
There is an assemblage of stuff amongst stuff that is aware of being aware of stuff.

Call the assemblage 'unenlightened' or 'Ennui Elucidator'.
Call being aware of being aware 'being conscious'.

In some ways the self is constructed - my hand is me to the extent I identify with it and not to the extent I don't. But in other ways the self strikes as more fundamental - it is the omnipresent subject that "I" cannot help but drag into every construction. — Ennui Elucidator

I don't think the self is fundamental. The assemblage known as Ennui Elucidator has a sensory feeling connection to 'its hand', whereas unenlightened has a sensory feeling connection to a completely different hand. Likewise, my eyes see from here and your eyes from there, and I know when this stomach wants feeding, but not when that one does.

So it looks like it is an illusion that there is a difference, caused by the limited range of awareness, and weakness of the linguistic and sympathetic connections between us.

Yeah, you said.

Yeah, you said. But it's not stealing Hilary's emails he's going to be charged with, but exposing war crimes of The US.

I don't much like the guy either. But It's really bad news for any kind of freedom of speech reporting of truth and exposure of high crimes and misdemeanours, and rank hypocrisy on the part of US and UK governments. And there is nothing much to discuss on that front.

Optimism and hope have the direction of fit from thought to word. Hope involves expectation and desire.

That notion of direction of fit is exactly what is needed to make sense of hope. — Banno

If I believe in science, the direction is from thought to world, but I believe in science because the direction of fit of science itself is from world to thought. But that direction of fit of science is established by the moral commitment of the scientist to the truth about the world - that is, by their belief in science.

The circle is unbroken. But it only works the one way, one cannot have a moral commitment to falsehood or believe in anti-science, except as a partial game within the real commitment to truth. To be a scientist is to be dedicated to the moral cause of extending human knowledge. To falsify one's results is to betray science.

In science as in religion one must ought to put aside personal desire in the name of principles of truth, justice, and - something else, I forget for the moment.

Consider a human neonate, if your memory does not reach to your experience of the state. No reading of labels is possible. One is in a state of helpless dependence on whoever cares, or doesn't care for one. One does not believe or disbelieve because one does not have the language to form a proposition, but one trusts, one has faith that one's cry will be heard, and for some it is not heard though they had faith.

Children trust their parents, until they learn better. Or with luck, they do not learn much better because their parents are trustworthy.

Some people have faith in democracy or justice, or the creative potential of humanity. But to have faith in justice is by no means to believe that justice prevails. Indeed if justice did invariably prevail one would not talk about having faith or belief, but of knowing from experience. Rather, this faith is manifested in action, as the attempt to make this day this affair, this act, a just one. One does not steal because it would be unjust, and thus one is faithful to justice.

One is faithful to the principles of science if one reports honestly and fully the results of an experiment and does not cook the statistics or pretend to have taken precautions one has not taken. A faithless scientist is an abomination and not to be trusted.

The more one looks at the way the language is used, the more one sees that faith has to do with an ethical life, and the evidence that supports faith is the way one lives oneself, not the way the world works.

In cyberspace, parody is indistinguishable from propaganda.