Yes, I presume the trend will continue. But what was the reason again? — unenlightened

Because the trend is already there, and nothing else is there and so you have no reason that could ground your doubt with regards to its continued existence. That's the reason.

How so? — Michael

Cause you already disliked Trump, so when you see all those unlikely things on the news that would be harmful to Trump, you're inclined to believe them because you want them to be true - it would confirm your dislike of Trump.

Exactly, so now you're suffering from confirmation bias.

No, I don't have to. You have to provide some evidence or argument that does not assume what it seeks to prove. — unenlightened

So when you have a trend that seems to indicate something, do you bet that the next data point will be different or the same as the trend? You have reason to presume that the next data point will be X (since that's what the trend indicates) and no reason to presume it would be anything else.

Dude, when I use your own words against you in that way, you are supposed to notice that you are being as uncharitable/hyperbolic/ mendacious/ whatever, as the people you are complaining about. What you let Trump off the hook for is the same as what you condemn 'the media' for. This is called hypocrisy. — unenlightened

Yeah, I noticed what you were trying to do, and I ignored it, because I don't think you're right.

We do have to make a bet, and we do bet that things will go on as before. And it would be unwise to do otherwise. — unenlightened

When you say that it would be unwise, don't you really mean that it would be irrational? It would go against our reason? I mean certainly if you saw someone making the opposite bet, you'd say they have lost their mind wouldn't you?

But rationally there is no reason to do so; except that there is nothing else to go by. — unenlightened

I think what you really mean is that there is no necessity that the future will be like the past. Sure, in that way, induction cannot be justified through deduction if that's what you were intending to do. However, you must concede that it is overwhelmingly more likely, given the evidence, that the future will be like the past. We have a lot of data points indicating this trend. There is no necessity that the trend will continue, but we have no reason to doubt that it will. Therefore it is irrational to doubt it in the absence of a reason.

"I have intrusive thoughts" implies necessarily, through the use of "I have", that the thoughts are yours. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, they are mine by virtue of occuring in my mind, just as my perception of a tree is mine by virtue of the fact that the tree is in my visual field. They are not mine in the sense that I have freely chosen to have them. Because I have not freely chosen to have them, I cannot be morally responsible for them.

This is nonsense, and contradictory. "I have intrusive thoughts" implies necessarily, through the use of "I have", that the thoughts are yours. To go on and claim that they are not yours is contradictory — Metaphysician Undercover

The argument here is a sophism. They are mine in one sense, and not mine in another. It is your failure to make the necessary distinctions there.

Trying to disassociate yourself from your irrational or immoral thoughts, as if the thoughts were not yours, does not absolve you from responsibility for these thoughts. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is very wrong. How can you be responsible for things that are not within your control?! Am I responsible for the thunderbolt outside?

And you are aware that relatively many people suffer of intrusive thoughts and associated disorders (like anxiety, OCD, etc.). Do you reckon that these people are morally responsible for their thoughts? That is almost a grotesque thing to say, that can bring a lot of suffering to such a person. Typically people who suffer of those thoughts do not want to have them, and are ashamed of them - they usually feel guilty about having such thoughts anyways, and part of the process of therapy in their cases is to understand that having those thoughts or not isn't within their control, they are under no compulsion to act on them, and they are just thoughts which happen to them - it doesn't mean they are immoral or sinful.

No, it is quite clearly something you are doing, you are thinking. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nope, because I don't want to think, it just happens by itself.

Even sensing is not something which happens to me, it is something that I do. You are very clearly taking an unrealistic approach here, with an extremely unrealistic description. — Metaphysician Undercover

How is sensing something you do? Can you stop your ears from hearing?

Talk of probabilities rather misses Hume's point.

What are the chances that the future will be like the past? Well the future has always been like the past in the past, so if the future is anything like the past, chances are it will be like the past.

One has to assume the conclusion even to reach a probable result. — unenlightened

So if we had to make a bet, which option would it be wise or rational to bet on? That the future is like the past, or that it will be different? And why?

A lie about the SOTU: "Thank you for all of the nice compliments and reviews on the State of the Union speech. 45.6 million people watched, the highest number in history." — Michael

Exactly my point, if you call this a lie *facepalm*. Look, real lies are things that are said to deceive and usually harm others. This is an inconsequential 'lie', and in fact, it's not even that. It's just an exaggeration. We all know that's how Trump speaks. Some people have a hyperbolic discourse - I've had many friends who were like that.

I'm not creating any fuss. I'm reporting on the fuss that the media, the intelligence community, and the Congressional investigations are making.

Also, my concern with Trump isn't just about the allegations of criminal activity (or the criminal activity of members of his campaign), but also of his character and policies, and being found innocent of collusion or obstruction wouldn't take away from that. — Michael

Thanks for admitting you hold a grudge, and the obstruction and collusion is merely a pretext. That's a beginning.

I stand corrected on that. The main point that they are really high still remains. He's doing a good job as far as Republicans are concerned.

Depends what you mean by dishonest. It depends how you interpret it. It can be taken as hyperbole. A hyperbole isn't a lie. — unenlightened

Sure, I can clarify what I mean. I mean that the media is uncharitable, and doesn't take the comments Trump makes with the meaning that they are really intended to convey. If he says "biggest crowd ever" - that's a hyperbole because that's his style. We all know that, so they are the stupid ones who read what he says in a way that it was never intended in. In philosophy, we call that being uncharitable.

Remember, I consider thinking as an act. This is described by Aristotle when we says that the contemplative life is the highest virtue, virtue being the property of an act. So if an individual has irrational fear, and is inclined toward thinking about the thing feared, without the assent of the rational mind, then this person is acting according to the irrational fear. Since this is often the case, then it is very clear that the rational, conscious mind does not maintain full control over the subconscious. The conscious is clearly influenced by the subconscious to do something irrational, to think about something which it is irrational to think about. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think your notions here are mistaken. Only what is under my control can be conceptualised as my action. If the action isn't under my control, is it really mine?

If I have intrusive thoughts which are presented to my mind without me directing my attention towards them, then these are clearly not "mine". They are something irrational that intrudes upon my mind, and I am free to assent or withhold my assent from them. So an intrusive thought isn't an action that I undertake, but rather something that happens to me. It's the same way that seeing something is only my action if I freely do it, but if someone forces my eyes to stay open and see something, then it's not my action.

There are also other important differences here that may be related that I quote from another thread:

In terms of ethics, certainly in a practical way, I often side with the Stoics more than with Aristotle or Plato for that matter. The reason for this is that Plato/Aristotle are elitist - the "good life" isn't open to everyone, regardless of their circumstances. Only a select few, who are blessed by the gods and are given favourable winds, only they can reach up to the ideal of the good life. Whereas Stoicism works regardless of circumstance - if you are a slave, or if you are the Emperor.

Also, Stoicism seems to teach more of what it actually takes to be successful at living life - even at acquiring the preferred indifferents (as the Stoics call them). Whereas Plato/Aristotle leaves you in a kind of rut if, say, you are living in Syria.

Also the moral psychology of the Platonists, with the tripartite soul may get the power of reason in determining actions wrongly. Reason is the weakest part of the soul, and must educate the other two parts to obey, because it is in their best interest to do so. The stoics say that this doesn't matter, since reason ultimately has the final say in assenting to impressions or not. — Agustino

That is all we have. — charleton

That's not true. We also have abduction (leaving aside deduction atm).

Deduction is useful in metaphysics, mathematics and in foreseeing empirical consequences of scientific theories that can be tested in the future. Deduction is also useful because it helps generate coherence and understanding.

Induction means taking a finite sample size, and based on that sample size drawing the probable conclusion that some property that is common to all members of the sample will also be common to all (or most) members of the population. For example, we look at 500 swans, they're all white, so we conclude that most likely all swans are white. Induction allows us to classify things by common features.

Abduction means that we take a list of properties (for example white, long neck, beak, bird) and we associate them with a common name - swan. Then if we see something else which has those properties, we say that it most likely is also a swan. Abduction is the process by which we try to find the best explanation for something.

Induction and abduction don't provide certainty, and deduction cannot tell us something that doesn't already inhere in what we know. So deduction merely clarifies. Induction and especially abduction is what brings new knowledge in.

Deduction is useful when we talk about, for example, God. Because we all have experiences of God and divinity, it's just about clarifying it, and bringing it into focus. *waits for charleton to throw a fit* :D

Democrats and liberals, and their media cheerleaders, have been living in fantasy land for a year. The cognitive dissonance and nervous breakdown incoming is going to be delicious. — gurugeorge

Only for a year? I think the fantasy has been going on for many years.

I was actually discussing this here recently too:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/149344

Uh, sure. I don't know much about that dude so didn't mention him. :) — Ying

Okay, so then on ethical matters, do you agree more with the Platonists or the Stoics?

He behaved normally for a liar. He was confronted with a previous claim he made and his response was "I don't stand by anything." — ProbablyTrue

No, that wasn't the context. The context was that he repeatedly told that guy that he had told him enough, and he can figure the rest by himself, and that guy kept insisting. That is called, at minimum, being rude, or being stupid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zFhYoBlZ2g — ProbablyTrue

What's wrong there? Trump behaved very normally. Of course, you cannot say everything openly, that's why he told the guy "you can figure it out yourself". That's how talk goes on at the high levels. Not everything is talked about directly.

Accusing a former president of wiretapping him? — ProbablyTrue

For example this - it's true. Manafort, who was part of the Trump team, was wiretapped, for example.

The media is so dishonest, that they will take a statement and call it a lie, and then write an article about it, and if you read the article, you'll see that the statement is actually not a lie at all. But of course, who bothers to read the article?!

This is marketing101 - length implies strength. Put up a long list of "lies" and people will believe they really are lies, because the list is long. It's pathetic.

You seem to have no problem with a person who holds the highest office in the world telling lies at an unprecedented rate. The evidence is there. The mental gymnastics you perform to justify them is impressive. — ProbablyTrue

Again, many of those are not lies. You just want to interpret them in your own way, rather than the way they were meant in - that's called being uncharitable.

In the most general way of interpreting that statement they are correct. You can look at any specific statement and then, after the fact, change it slightly to fit your view. That's not what he does. Also, you picked one of literally thousands. — ProbablyTrue

It was the second one, and you don't have to try to find bullshit like this. These lists are full of them, that's why they can't be taken seriously.

Another so called lie:

"I authorized Zero access to White House (actually turned him down many times) for author of phony book! I never spoke to him for book."

Trump never explicitly allowed his visits nor barred him from the White House, Wolff said, which allowed Wolff to exploit this "non-disapproval" to gain access through "various senior staffers."

Doesn't sound like a lie at all.

Actually, it seems to be a plural of a prostitute, meaning prostitute(s). — Posty McPostface

Well, they are pornstars, not really prostitutes >:O . But okay. I read about the Alana Evans thing, but I don't really buy that Trump invited her for sex. In fact, she didn't claim that either, she said she considers it a possibility though. It seems that both Evans and Stormy are capitalising on this for financial gain atm - their popularity is skyrocketing, and directors will hire them to do new pornos, knowing that now people will search for them and buy the movies. So, it's in their direct interest to make controversy.

>:O what a joke mate, what a joke. What is this?

"We enacted the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history."

They say this is a lie. That's wrong. It depends how you interpret it. If you interpret it as a reduction in corporate tax, it is the biggest in history. You could also interpret it as "really big" tax cuts.

This is what I mean, the media is really dishonest. How can anyone read and believe this crap? It's like the most uncharitable way to read someone's statements in history!

For example, if I say "I had the biggest crowd ever man!" - it depends what I mean by that. Because I could mean that it factually was the biggest, or simply that it was very big. That's how language functions.

Saying things that are wrong and can be verified as wrong aren't lies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading — ProbablyTrue

Insignificant lies, given that he is the President. And they may not even be lies - they can be taken as hyperbole. A hyperbole isn't a lie.

Wow. Lying is a only a way of speaking now?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html — ProbablyTrue

Proves my point. A list of things which aren't even worth calling lies. It's like saying the President lied because he said he had covfefe coffee in the morning instead of tea >:O - give me a break. Maybe that's a lie for people like me and you, but when you're dealing with matters as important as the US President is, then that is really insignificant.

Yeah, this is the very decadent and slippery slope dilemma that America faces. Namely, that we've grown accustomed to having leaders get away with lying and hypocrisy. — Posty McPostface

Okay, but you do have to admit that somethings really are insignificant, and shouldn't be considered lies in the true sense of the word.

But, now we have a president that claimed that groping women by their genitals is an OK thing if spoken in a locker room along with allegations that he spent time with a prostitute and paid her to keep silent. — Posty McPostface

As far as I remember, he apologised for those comments. And as I said before, he's not morally perfect, and I especially singled out that area of his life. What prostitute did he spend time with?

Notice that I said if we "assume" happiness as the desired end. Many people will not even take the time to figure their own priorities, or what is important for them to get from life. These people would not make choices conducive to happiness, nor even choices which they believe are conducive to happiness, because they haven't taken the time to determine that happiness is what they actually want from life. And even if they do determine some ultimate goals like happiness, they seldom would take the time to think about each of the activities which they are engaged in, to determine how these activities would, if they even do, relate to that ultimate goal — Metaphysician Undercover

Hmmm I disagree with your interpretation of Aristotle here. In my view, Aristotle is making a meta-ethical claim, that ALL people desire and seek after happiness. Even a criminal, for example, commits the crimes he does with the view that they will be conducive to his happiness. Of course, the criminal would be mistaken, but it doesn't change the fact that from his perspective, he is pursuing happiness. He is wrong either about (1) what happiness consists of, or (2) the means of acquiring it.

There will be an immediate joy from accomplishing what one sets out to accomplish. This in itself is a cause of joy. If the thing accomplished is not really conducive towards one's ultimate goals, in this case happiness, then a disappointment or other bad feelings could follow when realization sets in. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok, yes, I see what you mean.

I don't know about that. It may not be wise to attempt with the conscious mind to understand what the subconscious is doing. This puzzle might be impossible to solve, causing increased anxiety and frustrated thinking. If it is the subconscious which must "understand" the conscious, as I suggested, then we have to take a different approach. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you're taking quite a Platonic approach here, with the conscious being the rational aspect of the soul (which is also the "least numerous" in Plato's analogy with the perfect community), and with the subconscious being the appetitive part of the soul, which is the "most numerous". And reason's job is to "educate" the subconscious, and the subconscious must realise that reason aims at the good of all three parts, and hence will willingly obey.

However, there's also the Stoic approach which states that the rational part retains full control, since nothing gets done without the assent of the rational part. For example, regardless of how afraid or angry you feel, you must still assent, with your reason, to those feelings, in order to act according to them. So per this reading, it doesn't matter how the subconscious makes you feel - what matters is just how you exercise your reason.

Well, wouldn't it bother you if you had a president who persistently lies about, well, very important issues? — Posty McPostface

I know Trump frequently "lies" if you can even call them that, about insignificant issues. The media counts things like "it was the biggest crowd ever" as a lie - that's not a lie to me, and it's really insignificant - it's more of a way of speaking, as in "it was a really big crowd". This is unlike other Presidents who usually lie about big issues - I haven't seen Trump being that kind of liar yet.

What are the significant issues he's lied about? Maybe stuff like the Stormy Daniels issue, but we're not sure yet what the truth is there.

As a person who likes Plato (I do, to great extent) and Stoicism (again, my guiding philosophy in life), then wouldn't it be an issue of some strong cognitive dissonance to like the guy under the tenants of those two philosophies? — Posty McPostface

Trump isn't a morally perfect person, for example, I think in matters of sexuality he has some important shortcomings, but in terms of getting things done, useful policies (like the tax & bureaucracy reduction), it seems that he's been doing well. Also, he's a very good cheerleader for America.

Have you been reading Machiavelli as of recent? — Posty McPostface

No, why? In fact, I've never read Machiavelli's Prince fully.

You will both see that nothing happens to Trump. Some of Hillary's people are still infiltrated in the structures of the state and are doing all that they can to undermine Trump and the Republicans. Trump has the highest popularity, amongst Republicans, of any President in recent history - and rightly so, he gets stuff done. 84% of Republicans approve of Trump. 5% of Democrats do (no wonder, he's sweeping the floor with them). And 40% of independents approve. Those are the numbers folks. Like it or not.

So the media is fake. Trump has low approval ratings overall just because all Democrats hate him, and Democrats are roughly 50% of the population. And hopefully, when this matter is solved, and nothing happens to Trump, especially you Wayfarer, will apologise for creating a fuss for so long out of nothing.

(Y)

This thread has got me thinking that maybe feeling unable to cope with life is a problem created by society more than I originally thought. — Andrew4Handel

This kind of thinking just makes you feel helpless and doesn't get you anywhere. I recommend a turn to the Stoic way of thinking - whatsoever is in your control, that is the whole of good and evil in terms of what concerns you. The fact that they kicked you out of the philosophy circle you attended is an indifferent, since whether they kick you out or not is not in your power. So why fret about it?

Today I had to go before a judge with regards to some paperwork gone wrong for my business (and apparently as I was about to find out, an accountant who faked my signature on somethings, instead of signing on my behalf under their own signature). I was initially running late because I had to go pick up a paper before I went there, so I got very anxious and was scrambling around to get all the files that I needed ready, and just feeling worried. But then I thought - what the judge does is not my concern, because it is not in my power. Whether I will arrive on time or not, doesn't matter. What is more important is that I remain master of my fate, and just to spite circumstances, I will not care anymore if I am late, they will wait for me. So I started taking things slowly and became very calm after that. I stopped caring about things not under my control. You have the power, so don't give it up to society, or any other such entities.

Esoteric vs exoteric — Cavacava

I doubt that - if you read Plato's works, most of them have a fair balance between the esoteric and the exoteric. And there are Platonists like Plutarch who are very much focused on social issues.

Well, apart from the people I already mentioned (Arcesilaus and Karneades where scholarchs of the Academy), Cicero also went to the Academy during his time in Athens. Cicero wasn't exactly a platonist though. — Ying

What about, for ex. Plutarch?

With my utmost respect, are you even serious about asking this question? — Caldwell

What's wrong with asking that?

One question that interests me, is why did the Platonist school, even though it was more widespread than Stoicism, didn't produce important historical figures like Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and the like. Would it be because of the overly theoretic aspect of Platonism?

Yeah, I was more trying to refer strictly to the teachings of Plato (as found in The Republic, for example) in comparison to Stoicism.

If there is something which you want to direct your attention toward, then there is a reason why you want to direct your attention in that way. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, there are two cases you could be referring to here given the context. The person who suffers from anxiety will direct their attention either to the thoughts that cause the anxiety itself, since they want that anxiety to stop, as it is preventing them from fully living their life. OR - they are directing their attention towards seeking a way to prevent whatever bad thing they are anxious about. So those are the two possible reasons.

This is the principle which Aristotle outlines in his Nicomachean Ethics, the good, the end, that for the sake of which. You have an interest in that particular problem, and therefore your attention is directed in that particular way, because you apprehend some good to be obtained. But that good is wanted for the sake of a further good, and so on. To assume an infinite regress of goods would not provide a proper end, so he posits "happiness" as the thing which is desired for the sake of itself, the ultimate good. If one adopts that principle, then the desire for happiness is what directs one's attention. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, I agree with this.

So if you ask why do you want to direct your attention toward a particular problem, the answer is because it is through some means, conducive to your happiness. — Metaphysician Undercover

I disagree. The miser directs his attention to the hoarding of money because he believes that hoarding money will be conducive to his happiness - NOT because it really is conducive to his happinesss.

Any instance of doing anything follows the same basic pattern, such that anytime we are doing anything we are engaged in the same sort of mental activity. It is a simple process of getting something accomplished. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, and mindfulness and meditation actually trains this process. In mindfulness your goal is precisely to train your attention. You are supposed to focus on the breath, and maintain full awareness of it. And everytime your mind drifts to something else, and you become aware of it, then you must drop that thing and refocus on the breath. This process of choosing a goal, and then approaching it and not being distracted, this needs you to train your faculty of attention.

And, if the thing to be accomplished is desired to be accomplished because it has been determined as conducive toward one's happiness, then there is a joy and satisfaction which accompanies the accomplishment. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not necessarily - joy and satisfaction will only come if that thing is really conducive towards one's happiness, not just if it has so been determined.

Well, unenlightened posted a while ago about Open Dialogue in regards to more serious disorders like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. — Posty McPostface

I read a little bit about it when UN posted that thread, not sure what to say though. I haven't seen a theoretical explanation for how it actually works. Sure, you have open, transparent dialogue with the patient, and you give the patient a driving role in deciding which direction he or she wants to go in. You also involve the family. That's what a lot of GOOD therapists do anyway. I don't think that, in and of itself, is sufficient. Those people in Finland may be keeping some things secret. I don't see how doing just that is enough to solve the problems.

Will all this work? I don't know why it wouldn't. It won't work over night, and you may need some coaching from somebody you like and who can give you positive coaching -- it doesn't have to be a therapist. As the song says, "Latch on to the affirmative". — Bitter Crank

Or read Donald Trump's favorite book, The Power Of Positive Thinking by Norman Vincent Peale >:O

Dammit, I knew my mother didn't belong there. Always poking her nose in where she's best forgotten. — mcdoodle

Doesn't change the point that you come into the world alone. Sure, it takes other people to conceive you, but when you're born, you're still born alone.

Likewise, people can be around you when you die, but it's still a road you can only travel alone - you cannot take anyone with you on that road.