The minutiae of the international PR game are pretty funny. Zelensky has been addressing various parliaments for some time now.

A couple of days ago, he addressed the Greek parliament. He made his requests, drew historical parallels between Ukraine's fight and Greece's past, as he always does in these speeches, and then he let one of his soldiers address the parliament. The soldier he chose was part of the... Azov battalion. LMAO, you really can't make up this stuff! :lol:

But then it became even funnier. The next day, he addressed the Cypriot House of Representatives. Almost 40% of Cyprus is under Turkish occupation for many decades now with obvious parallels to what is happening in Ukraine right now, but Zelensky drew no such parallels. He didn't refer to the occupation of Cyprus at all. When the President of the House of Representatives gave her own speech after Zelensky, Zelensky even went offline while she was addressing the similarities of the aggressions against their respective nations. :lol:

You're the guy who says Putin is entirely justifiable starting a denazifying war against Ukraine, despite the fact that he has ties to neo-Nazis. You're saying he's entirely justifiable despite being a hypocrite regarding his stated cause. Can't argue with that shit, one can only laugh.

ROFL. Dude, get off the stuff you're on.

ROFL.

Your response to my original post had nothing to do with my post. Your second response was again just you soloing. Then I explained Putin's ties to the European neo-Nazis and far-right, since you said you were not aware of it. You ignored that in your response and went soloing again on issues I didn't touch on. I don't need you to teach me about Putin's perspective and West's hypocrisy/shortcomings, I'm well aware of them. Probably more than you are.

LMAO.

(I'm only posting this so you can repeat what you have already repeated ad nauseam)

Dude, to whom are you replying?

It doesn't make the argument in itself unsound, would just make Putin a hypocrite. — boethius

The only reason it appears sound is because there is a hidden premise: "If Putin himself has no ties to such groups".

However, it's not clear to me Putin has neo-Nazi far right ties. — boethius

Here is the leader of the most successful contemporary neo-Nazi party entering the Russian embassy in Athens


Golden Dawn was also propagating openly in favour of Putin, it was close with Dugin and there is at least some evidence that they were funded by Russian capitalists close to Putin. Putin's relations with the European far-right are well-known. It's not even slightly controversial. It's his fundamental strategy in order to push his agenda both in the European parliament and in European societies at large. After all, don't forget that Putin himself is part of the European far right.

I don't disagree with any of this. I also didn't think you were defending Putin. I was merely pointing out that it wouldn't follow logically because Putin himself has such ties. If you had written "it does seem to me that it could be mistakenly perceived to logically follow that Putin's rational for invading Ukraine (with neo-Nazi in far greater relative power compared to the Trump administration) entirely justifiable", I wouldn't have made this point.

if you argued neo-Nazi supporting Trump is a reason to fear Trump (or the Trump movement) would rise as a new Hitler (an argument people certainly made) then ... it does seem to me to logically follow that Putin's rational for invading Ukraine (with neo-Nazi in far greater relative power compared to the Trump administration) entirely justifiable. — boethius

It logically follows only if you ignore Putin's ties to the European far-right (neo-Nazis included).

In any non-Mickey Mouse country of this world, people who come face to face with random dudes waving these guns like that in public, during peace time, will immediately feel their life is in danger and attacking him would be considered self-defense. Although, I suspect that, instead of attacking them, most would either seek refuge and/or call the cops. Then, there's America. Even if it's such a tragic incident one cannot but laugh at how comic this whole thing really is.

Sorry, I don't mean to be flippant or rude, but I don't understand your objection. What do you find problematic about the idea that, while we can't have a complete conception of a good life, we can have a partial representations of it, but that because we fail to have a complete representation, we never attain a good life? — darthbarracuda

Well, I wrote about a few things I find problematic about your approach. If you got nothing out of it, then there's probably zero reason to repeat it. More generally, I find all of it rather contrived, but that's what usually happens when you begin with a conclusion and then you embark to find ways to justify it. Kinda like when you have a kid and then a contrarian challenges you on your shallow motives.

So, if I'm given zero reasons as to why a JTB is necessary for a good life, then there's not much the rest of it is gonna do. As I've hinted, I find this being absurd to the point of being funny, like asking someone evidence that they are in pain or that they are content. Before declaring that a JTB is necessary for a good life, you should explain how utterances like "I have a good life", "My life is shit" etc are descriptive and not expressive, you'd have to show that they are about belief and knowledge rather than emotion. For all I know, when I say "My life is shit", I usually mean "I feel like shit" and that has zero to do with belief or knowledge. Sure, when challenged, many of us try to justify or give evidence for things that have nothing to do with these. That's common. So, when someone comes and tells me that "shut the fuck up, your life isn't shit, look the kids in Africa", I might be tempted to provide "evidence" as to why my life is "objectively shitty" despite not being an African kid. Which, of course, has nothing to do with whether or not my life is shitty aka I feel like shit. If anything I might feel worse for being such a privileged crybaby.

Anyway, the point is simple, you haven't shown why "the good life", or whatever, is a matter of belief and not emotion. Cause if it's not about belief but about emotion, then your whole idea is a category error or however you philosophically inclined people call it.

I don't think that's a charitable interpretation of my argument. I said a complete representation of a good life will forever remain a mystery. — darthbarracuda

You can spin it however you like, the fact remains that what you tried to do is exclude the possibility of a good life based on our inability of forming a good enough conception of it. If you don't remember this, here it is:

"2. There is no complete conception of what a good life is, but only partial representations of what may be considered a good life, and such a complete conception will probably never be known, i.e. a complete conception of what a good life is will forever remain a mystery.
3. Therefore, it is not possible to have a justified true belief that one has a good life.
4. Therefore, it is not possible to have a good life."

Your "partial representations" are not enough for forming a JTB and a JTB is (according to you) a presupposition of recognizing a life as good. Therefore, the reason that we can never recognize a life as good is that we can't have a good enough conception of it.

Again, spin it however you like, that's what your argument says, so I don't think that my interpretation is uncharitable.

Again I don't think that's charitable and I sense you have not understood my argument. When a bad life is conceived as that which is not a good life, then if a good life is impossible, all lives are ipso facto bad lives. — darthbarracuda

I'm not sure you understand the arguments. When two terms have definitions that depend on each other, then, if one of the definitions is untenable, the other one is ipso facto untenable too.

Well, I would say that meaning in life is necessary for having a good life, but it's not obvious to me that it's sufficient. — darthbarracuda

You clearly don't understand what is being said. Meaning is not necessary for having a good life. It is necessary for having a meaningful and therefore a justified life. No need to bring the "good life" in this, since it's such a failure of a term.

You wrote that what a good life is will forever remain a mystery. So when you say that "A good life is worth living; conversely, a bad life is not worth living." you're uttering nonsense, in the sense that you do not know what you are talking about. Of course, then you only attack the first part, but it's only logical that if having a good life is impossible, because we can't know what a good life is, then, conversely, having a bad life is impossible too, because we can't know what a bad life is.

So, all that would be fine if it didn't sabotage your own argument and I would even agree that good and bad are nonsensical in this context. Meaningful/meaningless is a better pair of terms when it comes to justifying life. If one thinks his life is meaningful, then it's justified and it was worth having. Unlike good/bad, it's clear to me if my life is meaningful or not. It's not even a matter of knowing/not knowing if my life is meaningful. Not anymore than knowing that I'm in pain. It's nonsensical to question whether I know or not if I'm in pain. Even more nonsensical is for someone else to question it.

So, the OP uses a pair of nonsensical terms as a measure of the justifiability of life to show that life is not worth living because... the terms that he used as the measure are nonsensical. Makes sense.

LoL

If its sentences are meaningful, then it is. The OP talks about description. Description is related to meaning, not to aesthetic expression.

No, there aren't. Words/terms are in principle periphrastically describable in their own language. If they aren't, they probably mean nothing. If terms are in principle describable in their own language then they can be described using other natural languages. I'd imagine that the only cases where descriptions can't be accurate enough are when we are trying to describe in natural language scientific concepts which rest on math.

I can characterize modern democracies as oligarchies, let alone tribal circle jerking.

Of course only men talk. — Olivier5

Of course.

Meaning what it says. Decisions made by an oligarchy are not communal decisions, they are decisions by few men which affect the 'community'.

The nation-building may have succeeded had we used Islam for the foundation of that nation. — Athena

Or, maybe, if you had stayed away. But 'we' and 'you' here are euphemisms. They take for granted that you, or the average folk in general, had a say in all this. You didn't.

I happen to think that what was missing was Afghan own governance traditions, and in particular their reliance on communal decision making through institutions called shuras and jirghas — Olivier5

There's nothing communal about them.

In general, anyone who makes this about Islam, either to attack Islam as the problem or to present it as the solution, is, at best, a useful idiot.

Another aspect of the propaganda that is repeated ad nauseam is that those who are waging the wars are 1) freedom loving but naive liberators who just failed to forsee and take into account even the basic realities of war and 2) were totally unaware that war is a profitable business for some.

Well, I assume that the God Gregory referred to was the God of monotheistic religions, especially since Aristotle was and is still appropriated by theists of that kind. In a subsequent post, Gregory referred to Aquinas, which is further evidence that he tries to understand Aristotle's theology through the lens and the concepts of traditional monotheism. After all, debates about deism and the nature of God almost necessarily involve monotheistic conceptions of God.

As I understand Aristotle, there's one first principle which is Divine, perfect and alive. It's also worthy of reverence. That doesn't mean he believes in a single god or in a single divine thing. It just means that he holds there's a hierarchy between divine things.

Dunno, why don't you give him a call and ask him. Then get back to us and let us know. Just make sure you do it before the gods of the forum kick you out of existence.

Were they still present at the time of Aristotle? — Prishon

Yes.

In theology 'God', as in a single God, is usually used for the sole creator God of monotheist religions. Aristotle had no such concept. His 'God', or 'Nous', was neither the sole god, nor a creator. As I wrote, it's the first cause, which, ironically, is also a 'final cause'.

Probably explains why he thought women have fewer teeth than men.

Not always, in some cases he has "God", that could be interpreted as referring to something like a superordinate divinity, e.g., "the activity of God" (he tou Theou energeia) as in Nicomachean Ethics: — Apollodorus

And I can say, 'man has failed'. It doesn't mean I refer to a single particular man, I just use a collective noun. Just before your first example, he refers to gods while speaking on the same topic, so, no it can't be interpreted like you said it can. Aristotle holds there are many gods. Not a single god. What stands above all, as the first cause, is 'Nous'.

Yes.
Against.
For.

What definition of Deism are you working with? Those provided by Wikipedia and IEP do not take as given your three points.

To the points themselves, and irrespective of the question of Deism, none seems true of Aristotle.

1. In De Anima he seems to think that the higher part of the soul can exist after death.
2. This is false because he doesn't believe in a single God. He always refers to many Gods, many divine things and many 'unmoved movers'.
3. Aristotle seems to think he knows things about Gods that others (e.g. Plato) don't, so point three can't be true.

Hoping that the Taliban will change their ways is hoping the US will change theirs. A fool' dream.

Lol, those enlightened vets are so funny. In a way, funnier than redneck vets that still suck Uncle Sam's dick. Their "Eureka" moments are precious. It only took the guy a couple of wasted Afghan generations to conclude that it is now time to listen to the Afghans (whatever that means)! It only took the other one a shitload of lost Humvees to realize that war mongers profit from the war! Fortunately, they are here to tell us.

Let's hope Westerners, mainly those that care for things other than human rights, the environment and the wild life, will go downhill together with their abhorrent world order. Hopefully taking with them their offsprings like the Taliban, Erdogan, Putin and all that shitshow.

None of that is supported by the article that you linked me to. Erdogan said nothing about securing the airport "if the Taliban agreed". That's not what your article says, neither what any other articles I've seen say. He was in talks with Biden, not with the Taliban. And Khan was "mediating" because the Taliban reacted negatively to Erdogan's attempt to "secure the airport", which they called an "occupation".

So, Turkey didn't announce what you said they announced. And Erdogan wanting to meddle with Afghanistan's current situation in order to increase his influence has nothing to do with him showing willingness to put Turkey's military at the disposal of the Taliban. That's just a misunderstanding of the basics of what has happened. To understand beyond the diplomatic language, one has to understand the diplomatic language (and the diplomatic relations) in the first place. Here are the ABC's of the situation. It's the opposite of what you suggested almost in all respects.

Does that mean that a future cooperation between Erdogan and the Taliban is out of question? No. Erdogan is wildly opportunistic and a pragmatist. Does that mean that he wants to see the Taliban succeed? No. They're foes and regional rivals, so in the long term Erdogan could benefit more from an Afghan government that's subservient to the USA. And even though Erdogan wants to stand his ground as much as possible against the USA, he still needs USA infinitely more than he needs the Taliban.

Nowhere in that quote says that "Turkey has announced its willingness to put its own military at the disposal of the Taliban" or anything remotely close to it. Do you not understand what you're reading or are you distorting willingly?

Turkey has announced its willingness to put its own military at the disposal of the Taliban. — Apollodorus

Show us the announcement.

Going by your assumptions (i.e. individualism), antinatalism should be judged on individual basis. It doesn't make sense to treat it as a universal position. This would result in something like: "in this case, antinatalism is true and should have been applied" - "in that case, antinatalism isn't true cause the individual clearly values their existence even if they suffer". Statistically, natalism is true far far more often than antinatalism is. It is just a matter of fact that the overwhelming majority of individuals value life despite suffering and don't see the latter as a reason for not bringing someone into life (or themselves having been brought into life). This statistical conclusion has no bearing on the ethics of any single individual case. It's just a meta-analysis of the mass of individual cases.

You're trying to draw an absolute conclusion regarding antinatalism. It's either always true or its opposite is always true. This goes against your assumption of individualism. Your universal conclusion silences the individual that you claim should be the focus of our ethical attention.

Of course, it seems like we can judge the ethics of a particular case only after the fact, only after someone has experienced life.

Next time make sure not to cite Agamben and not to attribute it to 'hysteric' Christians.

Nope. Not at all, cause either way, she concludes that the free will notion (in the restrictive sense in which she's examining it) was formulated in antiquity, the problem is by whom exactly and these writers are legitimate contenders even if they weren't the ones who did this. That's why she had to write a fucking masterpiece and not an ignorant and arrogant post in a forum, like you. I already explained why she had to make the distinction. It's because

all the necessary ingredients of the restrictive free will problem are here, just not all gathered unambiguously within one single system.

So, it was not independently within these two systems that all the necessary parts of the doctrine were combined, but at their intersection. All the necessary doctrines were already part of the discussion and it just took someone else, the platonists of early second century, to rearrange them and make them all parts of the same system.

That they didn't face it 'within' their respective systems is Bobzien's expression. Didn't you find it curious that she had to write that and what she might mean?