I wonder what is the law that exists? Is it the paper appropriately signed and sealed, or is it the published version thereof, or is it a more complex construction of social effects that include the implementation thereof. If there can be a law that forbids unequal pay between genders, but there is is a gender pay gap, there seems to be be at the least a third question as to whether the writ runs or not. — unenlightened

Very good question. In North America, the law is selectively enforced, according to the caprice of the police forces. This is completely untenable, in my opinion, but the system survives just nicely, so it can't be that bad.

My favourite law quote is "Nobody knows the law. And ignorance of the law is no excuse before the law." An entire society exits without knowing the law. It is not just the texts of law that is the law, but the application, and also the judgments based on the articles that have been created by parliament. And I propose that nobody knows the law in its entirety.

But there are shortcuts. Shortcuts to know when it is that you break the law. A rule of thumb, if you like. You know you break the law if you make too short a shortcut to benefits, be it via financial shortcuts (robbing a bank, embezzling, bne), or via personal or corporate injury (beating someone up for their lunch money; industrial spying.) Walking across someone else's lawn is most likely a shortcut for you in getting to your own house.

Law is a tool of society. Mostly created by the ruling party (kings, pharaohs, etc. until democracy, when the People, via their representatives, create now the laws).

Law conforms to morality inasmuch as both are aides to preserve the tribe, and they promote behaviour that the tribe uses to successfully survive. The law changes according to how the tribe's needs change. By "tribe" I mean a society, small or big: a literal tribe, of five families or so, up to the Chinese People's Republic, with 1.5 billion and still counting.

The tyrants that created laws did not make it impossible for their subjects to exist. Only made the law to secure the benefit of the tyrant from society, and to make it tight for the subjects to vie for the position of the tyrant. In democracy it has boiled down (the needs of society have boiled down) to divvy up resources in an equitable, fair way, yet which promotes industry and private ownership. The two are basically inherently antagonistic (private ownership and fair trade or social equity), and therefore laws are needed to channel the flow of events into a reasonably safe and balanced way, in which no social change is urgently needed. These are morally supported: "Doh shalt not steal" (one of the Ten Commandments, Bible), and "a man must give ten percent of his all-time earnings to chartiy" (The Holy Koran).

A philosopher who uses the physics evidence in his philosophy, must understand the concepts. A physicist as you described, has all these tools, but he may lack practical or theoretical knowledge how to apply physics to his version of truth.

However, it is hard to say which of two people who are both theoretical beings, has deeper philosophical insight.

I’m reminded of a similar way of speaking that’s commonly in computers programming circles, where there’s no such thing as a “difficult” problem, only a “non-trivial” one. — Pfhorrest

Well, actually, the programmers' understatement is not. Programming, when approached properly, can be broken down to bite-size (not computer byte, but human bite, in a figurative meaning) solutions. That's one of the beauties of programming.

Of course, breaking down processes, like grammar check, may be not trivial, that is, it may be difficult to do that, so ultimately you're right. The difficulty is not on the programming side, normally, but on the side of the "outside expertise". Grammar is hardly known to a deeper extent by almost all Americans; yet you need to know grammar and how it works to incorporate it in a grammar checker program.

In the Hungarian culture, overstatements are more popular. "He cries (complains) like an employee in a Turkish bath", "Don't ask" (to "how are you?") "You are so stupid without a warm-up as others with a good running start" -- courtesy of Gyorgy Moldova, "Her ass was as big as fifty cents' worth of of a farmer's melon field." These expressions date back to the early seventies and before, so please forgive my anachronistic sexism.

I was at a Hungarian national ethnic picnic once. Picnic tables. Kids running around. A kid came to our table, and grinned. About 6 years of age. "What's your name, friendly fellah?" We asked. He replied with no words, just kept on grinning." "Where is your mommy and daddy?" Grin for reply. Few more questions like that, and a man in our company said, "he has beautiful, smart eyes like growths of mold do."

Hungarian is a colorful language. If you knew the grammar, or knew ABOUT how its grammar works, you'd run like hell to the nearest hills.

Faith is belief despite the lack of justification.
— Banno
But there is a justification, namely, one to the effect of, "It is worth it to commit to an ideology that promises salvation, even when the situation seems hopeless, and especially then." It's human nature to want out of trouble. ( — baker

Oops. Fallacy of equivocation.

Banno meant by "justification" "outside proof; proof that is not inherent in the proposition." (Banno, please correct me if I wrongly ascribe this interpretation to you.) An outside proof to faith would be the fulfilment of objectives in prayers to the Lord.
You, Baker, meant by justification, "the end result": You hope, and it gives you solace; faith helps you in that process.

Two totally different things, covered by the same word in the English language. A perfect example of the fallacy of equivocation.

The basic idea is that there are many questions, that are outside our cognitive capacity to understand. Examples are plentiful, the most immediate one in contemporary circles is the so called "hard problem" of consciousness: how can matter possibly have the qualities of experience? — Manuel

You may call me a hair-splitter, but how do you know we won't understand the answer to the hard question, once we found it? We may NEVER find it, but it's not guaranteed that it is beyond our cognitive capacity to understand it, once the answer is given or found.

Why do we have a sense of morality? — Manuel

To this question, clear answers exist.

Why does gravity work the way it does? — Manuel

This is not a problem.

Why existence? — Manuel

Again, not a problem.

How can I move my arm or my finger? It's clear that I can do it, but I have no idea why I can do it, or how it is that I do it. And much more. — Manuel

Basic biology can answer it.

I don't think human comprehension can be tested by human questions. Human knowledge, yes, it can be, but not comprehension.

But it seems to me that at almost any instance, if we look at things closely, they just make no sense. — Manuel

I am sorry... I disagree. Most things, with a few exceptions, make sense to me. The few exceptions are the Bible, the Koran, etc.

Or, what do you mean why does gravity work the way it does? That's just the way gravity is. I'm inclined to say that we have no idea in either case. But we proceed as if we understood these things. — Manuel

If you ask me, you're looking for meaning in things that are not meant to have meaning.

Some elementary questions may be forever remain unanswered by those who reject mysterianism. But those who accept mysterianism, there are no mysteries. For them, all unanswerable questions can be viewed as mysteries and answered by willful acts of supernatural entities. No exception.

Seeing that the supernatural is not accessible, and seeing that some unanswered questions are about powerfully nefarious acts; therefore the only option humans have is to answer the unanswered by creating models of the natural world. This is the ONLY tool we got; whether it's adequate or not, is questionable; but no other tool presented yet.

Maslow's pyramid of needs comes to mind. Unsatisfied needs to the extreme are painful.

Anti-hedonist: what about ascetic or pan-ascetic? If you are looking for a term used by the industry, pan-ascetics may not be it. I just made it up.

I haven't formally or informally formulated the format that the form of the formal totalitarianism will form.

So Jesus is an avatar for the Father.

Yes, I believe totalitarianism is coming, but not total totalitarianism.

that in order to understand what someone is telling you, it is necessary for you to assume the person is being truthful, then imagine what could be true about it.

Wow. This could pose a veritable nightmare in debating.

Mary: " I am 355 feet tall."
Peter: "I accept that, because it is necessary for me to assume that you are being truthful."
And there is nothing Peter can continue with, since he needs to follow the instructions, should we accept this law to be used and adhered to.

It says, the law says, "imagine what could be true about it." Well, I can imagine a woman 355 feet tall. Never saw any, but I can imagine it. And it is sufficient to the truth that I can imagine it.

This way any statement is necessary for acceptance for truthfulness, since human imagination is endless.

Sorry, Don, I just revised my opinion on this law, and I reversed my stance 540 degrees.

It (Miller's law) instructs us to suspend judgment about what someone is saying so that we can first understand them without imbuing their message with our own personal interpretations.

that in order to understand what someone is telling you, it is necessary for you to assume the person is being truthful, then imagine what could be true about it.

I've already done that and I GET SERIOUS FLACK FOR IT FROM OTHER MEMBERS. I calls them as I sees them; meaning I read the words, and I DO NOT add interpretation to them that is different from what is written. Many times, because of this, I've been labelled a nitpicker. I don't mind being called names, but not when I do things properly, I don't want and I don't like getting punished for it.

If someone says "yeah, but you must be able to discern intended meaning as opposed to written meaning," then they are asking me to violate Miller's Law.

I'm all for Miller's law, but then if the site accepts it this law to be enforceable, I'll refer posters to this law, those posters who are pissed off with me for sticking to my guns on wording, and the law shalt prevail.

---------------------------------

On the other hand, and on further studying the meaning of the law, the law itself (and as interpreted above in the beginning of my post) asks us to break Miller's law at the same time as to not break it. It asks us NOT to read what is written, but to GUESS what the respondent wants to MEAN, since we are instructed to IMAGINE what the TRUTH delivered in it is. In this process we can't avoid making interpretations; and that alone and by itself already asks us to do precisely what it asks us not to do: do interpretations (understand the truth) and not do interpretations (do not judge).

This law is self-contradictory and therefore I move that it not be used.

According to a quick search online, Good can be both an adjective and a noun. The first definition for it being a noun is "that which is morally right; righteousness." — Yun Jae Jung

You're right. Well done.

Stop right there - good is not anything which raises an individual' s quality of life. — J O Lambert

Good is not a noun. It is an adjective. So it can be meaningful only in conjunction of its modifying a noun.

Good sex is good for the individual's quality of life. So is good food, good company, good sleep, good health, good will, good night.

You mean, Ukraine wants to become a free Western democracy, and Russian troops are standing on the border, and someone is saying, "The moment you establish free democratic voting we, the Russian troops, are marching in!"?

Anyone could have written the same post as you, Javi, about USA being Putin, and Iraq being Ukraine, when the USA invaded Iraq. Twice. Who stood up for that country, for those hapless, innocent people? You? So why are you more sympathetic to Ukrainians than to, say, Iraqis?

This is a rhetorical question.

Errr.... no. Whilst this is true it misses the salient point that the following symptoms have been hysterically conveyed to the population for a year.

Could almost write a song based on the chorus of: fever, body ache, dry cough, fatigue, chills, headache, sore throat, loss of appetite, ... — Tom Storm

Well, the newspaper said, something to the effect, "what are the major symptoms." if they news paper said, "people could not name the symptoms repeatedly asked of them", then you would be right.

It's all in the wording. Journalists should be aware of the importance of the meaning of words.

Carry on. I am getting out; I had my say.

Any of those. — Tom Storm

Cop out. A major symptom is a symptom that is dominant or more numerous than others. They all can't be major symptoms, but we agree that for what we are told, they are equally likely symptoms. So there you go, there are NO major symptoms. Not any of those. But none of those.

And truth to be told, the most major symptoms are no symptoms at all. Most Covid infected people display no symptoms. So if you go with the "most numerous" or with the "dominant" definition of major, the no symptom is the major symptom.

People are not ignorant. The news media is stupid. They are replete with idiotic journalists, who learn how to write well, but their gray cells are not employed in the process.

So which of those is/ are the major one/ones? The question is asked inherently wrongly.

I am not denying that there are or can be visible simptoms. But I deny that there are major ones. That word, "major", alone, destroyed any meaningfulness inherent in the question.

I saw in a UK poll yesterday that even a year after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic about 50% of respondants could not name the disease's major symptoms. I find this level of ignorance staggering. — Tim3003

News item, that you and the other respondents to this thread missed: THERE ARE NO MAJOR SYMPTOMS TO THIS DISEASE.

Most people are symptompless, who get it. What do you call that symptom?

Some people display flu-like symptoms, some others go into a form of pneumonia that very likely kills them. Which is the MAJOR one? There are NO major symptoms, so those who answered "correctly" are the ignorant ones, which still makes it fifty percent... the ignorance level is unchanged at 50%.

I am just trying to give you guys some perspective. The ignorance level is 50%; but ignorance is present not on the same side as the newspaper articles and you all claim.

I think the undefinability of the concept "good" does not exlcude the validity of its use, and especially not in the use of defining morality.

It is true that good as such is undefinable. But humans use that word, and I believe with a common understanding what it means. Then when you describe what moral actions or decisions are, in relationship to good, then you are transfering the undefinability of good to the definition of moral. The undefinability is transfered, but the limitation of the definition of moral is not hurt by that. We just have a new concept (not that it's new, but in its evolving definition it is preceded by the concept "good"), and though it is based on an undefinable quality, it still clearly delineates its meaning, with a workable, useful, and to me, true definition.

I base my argument, of course, that undefinability does not mean meaninglessness. Good, the word, is meaningful; its defintion is impossible, but that does not take away from its quality of being meaningful.

On the other hand, politicians are over-achieving narcissists, CEOs are over-achieving billionaires, exploited workers are over-achieving losers, writers and actors are over-achieving paupers, religious leaders are over-achieving spiritualists, and social workers are over-achieving liberals.

Are politicians really magicians in disguise? I am not sure, but I also suspect that party clowns are failed politicians and philosophers are failed party clowns. CEOs of multinational conglomerates are failed philosophers, and 300 million workers in the USA are failed billionaires. Billionaires are failed writers and actors, and writers and actors are failed religious leaders. And religious leaders are failed social workers, and social workers are failed politicians.

Utopias, visionarism, futurism, and even presentism and looking at the past are all riddled with the fallacy of reducing the concept of humanity by stripping it of its diverse nature, and of its further diversification. How does Transhumanism handle this concept, the concept that humanity is not at all a monolithic homogeneous substance made up of individuals of the same social and personal psychology, with the same or similar needs, wants and desires, but a mass conglomerate of an ever-growing trend of diversification?

How do you see these songs changing how people act in the future? I'm not trying to be cynical, just trying to understand the reasoning for your choice. — FlaccidDoor

I am not sure if the songs have behaviour modification properties. But if people listen to these songs, and see the same beauty in them that I see -- the human condition, rapturous joy, and total immersion in the talk by another world that comprehends us, but we don't comprehend it -- then I am happy for two reasons: the songs remain known, and the joy accessed by them remain available.

I am a preservationist, and the idea to see these songs, and many others, go and pass into oblivion pains me.

I relate to these songs, and to many others, as a heroin addict relates to the drug: I want to share the immense joy. I don't take heroin, never have, but I can get pretty high on songs and coffee. I need nothing more to raise me to tears of happiness. Oh, my thoughts, too, of course, that I go through when I listen to the songs.

(P.s. I am not dissatisfied, but must correct you: the two separated not due to class differences, but due to fate. She was going through a nasty divorce, and he got her out of a tight spot, but used too much force. They drove west as far as they could then abandoned the car, and each went their own way.

If you care to listen to the song again, please pay particular attention to the part when they head back to her flat after they reunited by chance at a topless bar, where she waiters, and in her pad she hands him a book of poetry written by an Italian in the fifteenth century.)

Your comments bear no pertinence, whatsoever, to the theme underlying this thread. — Aryamoy Mitra

I beg your pardon. Both of my comments bear serious pertinence. I admit there was a lot of poetry also included in the first post of mine in this thread. But that's why I put the message you asked for in the first sentence.

Added in my first post in this thread, what may seem like a complete waste of space with letters and words on it, was a reference to the ultimatums of old: the Ten Commandments, Hammurabi's Laws, etc. In those days the Law, codified, promised serious penalties for unlawful behaviour. The laws, as codified, also included a section how GOD will deal with those who don't respect the law as codified. They included supernatural elements, and punishment most severe. They were promised to be executed by GOD. Conversely, in my first post, there were fictitious elements, reference to BigFoot, for instance, which tried to emulate, in a jocular way, the warnings in the old law books for punishment by GOD.

This was done in parallel to your opening post: a threat to destroy the world, under certain conditions. The destroyer, so to speak, was serious, but in our world only an assumption. In the old lawbooks, the most severe punishment was serious, but only carried out by an assumption -- by GOD. This is the pertinent referencing part.

The second post of mine on this thread bears pertinence to the reply by @T Clark. TC's response was a very witty, and smart, remark that defeated the demand very nicely... that is, if fulfilled. It was in logic a little bit like a good Backgammon game -- come from behind, and turn the situation around. That's how I look at it, anyway.

My reply to that, was a reminiscing about the same type of Backgammon move in real life. True my second post had no pertinence to the original topic, but it had pertinence inasmuch as it reflected -- in a way -- the type of logic used in TC's post. And on this website it is in good form to have a little bit of excursion from the original topic as long as relevance to the posts replied to is valid in one way or another.

I am very keen on needing to explain my utterances. I belonged to a club a long time ago, where they branded me an idiot, having always contributed to the conversations something that they reckoned was not pertinent. Whereas all my contributions had pertinence. Soon after I was branded an idiot, I was ousted from the group.

I want to avoid the same fate for me in this group. The pertinence is explained, therefore, because I don't want to be branded an idiot here, too.

Find a technology that will counteract the effects of the mechanism. — T Clark

Modern Estate Law penning has come up with a wonderful clause to be included in Last Wills: "Should anyone contest this will, he or she will be immediately, expressly and irrevokably disqualified from receiving any part or portion of this estate and his or her shares, if any, will be added to the estate to be divided up among the other heirs." IN other words, "go against my word and will, and I'll screw you big time."

No word is given in case ALL heirs attack the will, singly or jointly.

Aryamoy is naturally not a lawyer.

Decide for yourselves (human population) how to reduce the total population number on the globe to 100 000 000 souls in two generations and carry through. If you are just one person too many in 100 years, I'll send you all, without any exceptions, including the Pope, Yeti, the BigFoot and the Loch Ness Monster, to the bottom of hell in a fiery spit of Satan's first-born serpents and monsters, to torment you and all your des- and ascendant relatives to a vile and blimey puke-sea hot lava replete with snakes and worms, to eat your inyards and the overhead speakers will blast "If I Won a Million Dollars" by the Barenaked Ladies to all eternity to learn what happens to those hapless souls who disregard my wrath and defy my precise and exacting instruction, written in proper standard informal English, with no ambiguity.

Why do we need justification for beliefs? That's why they are beliefs. They are unjustified knowledge.

If you want justified knowledge, that's a bit impossible. As per the proof. In empirical cases. Although "cogito ergo sum" is a justified empirical statement proving the self's existence to the self, and to nobody else.

But why is "Albert not the same as Albert" an unjustified wrong statement? Language perhaps, as the unjustified conveyor of thoughts, is the culprit that we object to? Is language an unjustified conveyor of thoughts? Well, the Chinese room experiment is a proof of that. I mean... you need language to disjustify the valid existence of a priori proofs expressed in language.

That's a bit too rich. Because then we get to the paradox (and not merely a contradiction) of @Amalac. The proof of proving all proofs wrong proves itself wrong... therefore all proofs are not wrong... including the proof in the trialemma; then it means the trilemma is not wrong... which means it renders itself wrong if it's right, and it renders itself right if it's wrong.

Truly a clear paradox.

So if yo don't want to go insane following a paradox, don't start reading this thread.

Given any finite sequence whatever, it can be continued with absolutely any next number and fitted to a polynomial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_polynomial — fishfry

Thank you, Fishfry. Now we need another quote that it can be continued with absolutely any next number and fitted to any of an infinite number of non-congruent polynomials. That's also true.

The questions are information-seeking; I am seeking your opinion on how you evaluate, think through and address the dilemmas through a series of questions. That's all philosophy is. There are no right/wrong answers.

And I don't personally care about fat people or Hitler. I am just talking and making convo on this topic; since there seems to be some arbitrariness to the whole "hate" thing.

It seems meaningful to make a distinction. — Cobra

Thanks.

Yes, what today is the Czech Republic, was the industrial hub of the Monarchy. Yes, they made the car Tatra. They made another car, forgot the name, even before the second world war. When Hitler ordered the engineers to build a people's car, the Volkswagen, the engineers were unable to design an engine for that car-- they simply stole the idea of the Czech-made car. After the war, for decades the replacement parts of Tatra (or another one), and the Volkswagen were completely exchangeable.

The Czechs, and to a lesser degree, the Slovaks, prospered during communist times, but there was strong oppression... why else the "communism with a friendly face" movement in 1968 that brought in the Russian occupation.

Czechoslovakia was as much a democratic country as all other satellite countries of the USSR. They had a one-party system.

Could you answer this:

So, if I have an extreme hate toward fat people, is this unethical? Or is this hate "good" because being fat is unhealthy?

Surely this isn't just a matter of circumstance, and whether hate is good or bad isn't determined by the circumstance, but the degree in which hate has significance.

Being fat is almost always detrimental in the long run. Would you say "hate" is good, therefore ethical because it serves a significant role in discouraging fatness?

Why do we then, not support the extreme hatred of fat people, but support the extreme hatred of "Hitler" for example?

Is it because all the fat people claim, "It's wrong to hate fat people,". Is this the case? — Cobra

This is a philosophy website, with general freedom of styles. I hardly ever answer questions, unless it's information-seeking. If you want me to provide you with my opinion, please make a case in the affirmative. Replying to questions is, I am very sorry, not my style.

This is not to disrespect your questions, or to dismiss the validity of your enquiry. I am not here to tell you what to do. Ask questions, but I am here to tell myself what to do, and I don't answer questions, I only give opinions on nominative statements.

Next time you go to your doctor, preface your observations/comments by telling him/her that you know everything. That should resolve your issues with your care providers once and for all. — synthesis

You are angry for no reason. I stated that doctors don't know everything, and I stated how they handle situations when they don't know the answer to a concern. IT DOES NOT MEAN I DO KNOW. Furthermore, there is no disrespect intended, because I DON'T EXPECT DOCTORS TO KNOW EVERYTHING.

Your advice is insulting, which is accepted on these forums, but please think back and try to see that I was not insulting the profession, I was just illuminating the standard. I have no bitterness for that, and if you got that out of my post, that I was bitter and disparaging, maybe it's your expectation that people are disrespectful in this aspect. Well, I am not, and I hope I did not write anything that would have insinuated that I am disrespectful.

Maybe you could provide a citation for this assessment. :chin: — jgill

Reason. Stands to reason.

It would be just as easy for you to research this on Google as for me. I know that I have made the claim, so it should be backing it up, but then again, I am here for fun, nobody pays me what to do and what to say. So I only do those things that are fun for me here.

Here's the take-home message. Once people form poor life habits, it is difficult if not impossible to change their ways, so the emphasis should be on education when people are young and throughout their schooling. The importance of eating well, exercise, and other positive life practices should be a priority, as well.

Once people develop chronic conditions, it's late in the game. — synthesis

I agree with this. However, education can only be carried so far. In my old country the emphasis is on scientific education, right in grade school, and every student needs and must take all the subjects. So they all take math, biology, chemistry, etc. as well as literature, history and phys. ed. Heck, they even must take art and drawing.

And guess what: people in my old country have vocal advocates of no mask, of public gatherings, of antivaxxing, etc. The percentage change is not different.

One more example. On a public tv show a famous (in that country) humorist celebrity pretended to be a stranger to the city. A film crew was recording this, I guess hidden from the passers-by. Everyone tried to help him with directions. Then he said, "hold on, I've got a map," and he pulled out a SEWING PATTERN. obviously it was full of random-looking lines, and dotted curves, etc, and people showed him, "You see, you are here," and they put their finger at a point, "and you go this way, then turn left," etc.

These were people with public education.

People can't all be taught. No matter what you try, and it's not only the insane or the intellectually challenged that can't be made to know. In my estimate anyone with high school education in North America and an IQ less than 120 retains less than one percent of their once-known subject material. They know how to add or subtract, but they can't divide a polynomial into another one, and they can't find the lowest common multiplier of 6 and 12. They know of the capital of Holland that it's H, and that French eat frogs. Everyone knows who Hitler was, but not many know the major achievement of pres. Jefferson. (I don't either.) Nobody knows who Adenauer was, and nobody can name the first woman in space.

Therefore my only addition to your opinion would be to have ONGOING mandatory education (academic) for adults. We know how to add and subtract because we practice it every day. We don't know why abiogenesis is possible, because the chemistry is long forgotten.

Then we'll be spending public money what we save on an educated patient clientele, on the education of the clientele.

In my opinion you can't win.