Don't worry Tim, the real truth will show itself and become abundantly clear. They will not acquiesce to impeachment but they will certainly acquiesce to wrongdoing. You'll see this on Monday.

I apologize I didn't read through all of the responses because I'm sure there are some good ones... .

I don't think the question is whether colors exist or not. I think the question is what kind of existence do colors have or possess.

In other words, it's the philosophical question of existence over essence. For example if one tries to approach its existence by way of understanding, say, metaphysical abstracts, one could possibly draw similarities to music or math.

You can listen to music to experience it. Likewise you can see a color to experience it. And in describing both experiences, how do we prove its experience? Are both experiences metaphysical ones? (For example, describe why an individual prefers yellow over red. Or describe why a person likes one song over another song. )

Yep they're taking the risk of weighing the differences between POTUS' criticism, vs their constituents criticism. It appears they're choosing the lesser of two evils. However that could backfire of course.

I would not want to be in the shoes of Republicans who will have to answer to their moderate base. Further, at the end of the day you may see swing States indeed moving to the left much like the last midterms did... .

It's really a lose-lose for them.

Good luck dumper trumper's!!

Though this may be painfully obvious I am willing to go out on a limb and predict the following:

1 . Over seventy percent of Americans wanted witnesses.
2. The president lied about actually wanting witnesses.
3. There is no question that more evidence will be forthcoming that will corroborate allegations.

Consequently, much like in the OJ trial, not only will you see private corporations breaking ties with the Trump brand, you will see public displays of outrage including a proliferation of crowd booing at certain public events.

Good luck Dumper Trumpers!
LOL

Bonus question : how come the president changed his mind about witnesses didn't he want to see witnesses? Or was he lying again...

LOL

Yep, it's obvious common sense stuff. The Republicans are like Ostrich's; they've buried their heads in the sand only to complain it's too dark!

LOL

Oh, yeah, Thanks. I think he was the guy who flip-flopped on his interpretation of 'abuse of power' during the Clinton era(?)

If you were a lawyer, would you have represented OJ and Epstein?

f you don't think he's hiding anything, then why resist witnesses, subpoenas, intimidating Gov employees, witnesses and senators, hiring attorney's (Giuliani) and nefarious associates (just like he did in the Mueller case where at least 6 people from his campaign plead guilty/in jail) instead of letting gov. agencies investigate Barisma, on and on.

Any clues there? Using logic, is it reasonable to assume he's guilty? I'm a bit confused. Please share your detailed thoughts if you could.

As far as the phone call, he asked for a favor, no?

...and does 'the will of the people', include Republicans who condone cheating? Yikes!
Christianity Today final saw the light!

LOL

He and Dershowitz should team up. The Blunder Twins.

Ha, yeah wasn't Dershowitz the guy who represented Jeffery Epstein, OJ Simpson, and other nefarious individuals? LOL

FYI- if you do the research, you'll see Dershowitz typically represents people who commit sex crimes. It almost begs the question why? He's done it for years with little success. Maybe he's got some sort of axe to grind...

Is this a tacit admission that they lack the evidence to prove their case? — NOS4A2

I think it is the same 'tactical admission' of precluding witnesses!
LOL

No. I think we all know very clearly what happened in the phone call. — Hanover

Hanover,

I find that odd. If you don't think he's hiding anything, then why resist witnesses, subpoenas, intimidating Gov employees, witnesses and senators, hiring attorney's (Giuliani) and nefarious associates (just like he did in the Mueller case where at least 6 people from his campaign plead guilty/in jail) instead of letting gov. agencies investigate Barisma, on and on.

Any clues there? Using logic, is it reasonable to assume he's guilty? I'm a bit confused. Please share your detailed thoughts if you could.

As far as the phone call, he asked for a favor, no?

I’m not convinced that any psychological behaviour is unchangeable in itself, although conceptualised behaviour patterns require more self-conscious or at least meaningful effort over time to shift. I think we need to be careful what we label as ‘natural’ or ‘intrinsic’, even beyond the level of volition - as Feldman-Barrett demonstrates with emotions. — Possibility

Hi Possibility!

Do you have any examples of that?

He wasn't charged with obstructing the Mueller investigation. — Hanover

The point being, he didn't commit any crime and Congress never made an effort to enforce its own subpoena..

Hanover,

I don't believe your telling the truth there. The Mueller report found numerous instances of obstruction, he just punted the ball to Congress on that. If you need to be refreshed, I'll be happy to post a fact-check.

And you are only partially correct on the subpoena thing. Congress is still pursuing one that Trump probably will take to the supreme court. Accordingly, they figured it would be a waste of time to pursue any more in that way since Trump will block all the requests thru the court system/supreme court, which in turn will take up to a year or so to adjudicate. And that's what Trump prefers anyway.

And as far as 'crime' goes. Impeachment is not a civil law process, it's a constitutional one. And therefore abuse of power is an interpretation from the constitution.

All that, (and other things that have transpired thus far) my question is, do you think he's hiding something?

Beyond the simple metaphor of a person exercising their body not intended for hypertrophy, we can exercise our brains rather for overall health and fitness.

At the risk of redundancy we know that physical science relies on our sense of wonderment in discovering and uncovering novel things: all events must have a cause.

Similarly, and perhaps more metaphorical, would be the songwriter who effectively asks the same kinds of questions to him or herself in order to create new music.

It's like aspirin it's a miracle drug!!
LOL

Good point...I guess it would depend on what is meant by 'sanctions' and the like . In a democratic-capitalist society , the free market generally acts as its own sanctioning body or mechanism against most inequities. (Not that there aren't any exceptions, inequities, abuses, etc..)

Hi Artemis!

I would caution you not to get too hung-up on the exceptions. No pun intended, but are you saying that most things in life are black and white? Which is more prevalent, extremes or the compromise between the two?

Practical examples of excess or extreme's in random order (the list is endless):

1. 9/11 (religious extremism)
2. obesity
3. alcoholism
4. Ancient Gladiator games
5. workaholic
6. greed
7. flogging
8. drawing and quartering

Practical examples of moderation/compromise (the list is endless):

1. speed limits
2. majority of public safety laws
3. hybrid cars
4. balanced diet
5. moderate exercise
6. work and play
7. all season tires
8. compromise/negotiations

In keeping with the Political theme relative to the OP, here in America we value compromise in our democratic process through the two party system.

I think what you are referring to is something along the lines of a false equivalence or a so-called fallacious argument thus: if one person saying that the sky is blue, while another claims that the sky is yellow they might conclude that the truth is that the sky is green. While green is the color created by combining blue and yellow, therefore being a compromise between the two positions—the sky is obviously not green, demonstrating that taking the middle ground of two positions does not always lead to the truth.

Thoughts?

Considering Dershowitz's shady past (let me know if you need any information on his past record/court cases and who he typically represents) unfortunately, he comes across as one of those stereotypical lawyers who can't be trusted, and of course flip-flops on his own interpretations of the law. Adam Schiff uncovers some of that here:




Here's where Dershowitz contradicts himself in this other video (that Schiff alludes to), where he say's abuse of power is impeachable viz. Clinton:

https://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2020/01/alan-dershowitz-1998-contradicts

Schiff and Dershowitz are channeling their inner John Rawls here:

I don't fit into a good box, ideologically. — Virgo Avalytikh

I'm in the same boat Virgo.

Because I don't believe in killing; war's, capital punishment, and abortion. Rather, I believe in a non-cushy prison life as a deterrent; the adoption option (or the abortion/exception in the case of endangering the mother's health, etc.), and war's as a clear defensive strategy (as apposed to an offensive one). In America, as leaders of the free world, you can wish for peace or free-democracy all you want, but if the indigenous peoples are against it, it makes little sense to waste resources on an interminable resistance, particularly where other countries do not separate church from state-third world; Syria, Iraq, etc..

Even the sensitive 2nd amendment gun rights legislation, I view it as public safety. Using the automobile analogy and treating like case likely; different cases differently, we have speed limits for a reason. We don't allow dragsters on the highway and limit them to the racetrack. Similarly, assault weapons should be as paramount to public safety.

I could go on about the virtues of being a Moderate, as I view it as common sense reasonableness, as I draw from both sides. I take a page from Aristotelian logic there :wink:

Hey Forrest, I couldn't participate because I'm a moderate independent. (We need more moderates in our political and religious institutions.)

Sure, agreed.. Please keep in mind all the other so-called classifications of Love viz ancient Greek philosophy.. And accordingly, not only love of self ( and basic self esteem) but also love of friendships, colleagues, family, nature,, et al are equally important.

If you are a nice, caring, friendly, person but openly criticize the premises of life, even if you are "contributing" you are deemed as unworthy. It doesn't matter your character, how you treat people. — schopenhauer1

Hey Schop1!

Being a glass half-full (not half-empty) guy myself, and although perhaps a little idealistic, I don't think that's really the case there. Now, unless you have a particular happenstance in mind, I'm not sure I'm understanding your beef.

Just common sense say's that critique of, really anything, both on a micro and macro scale is what helps improve society and the human condition. By living in the free world, it goes without saying we are free to better ourselves (or not better ourselves) not only for our own benefit, but for the benefit of others as a whole.

Now I certainly get how Government and the 'corporate america mentality' tends to perpetuate, what I'll call, the tin-solder routine, where conformity rules the day. But there again, it depends on what you're referring to... , otherwise if I join a team, I have to play by the rules. And if I join a team whose internal philosophy is not compatible with mine, I leave and move on.

Help me understand your concern here... ?

You're fine I was just clarifying your concern relative to the remarks you made about physical finitude.

Think of it this way. Enjoy physical activity as long as your body will allow you to... . Then like in all other seasons of one's life, you can then learn /teach in order to give back, as you reeped the benefits of life's experiences.

Surely that's got to be gratifying, particularly if you're giving back from a lifelong passionate hobby or interest.

Yes it indeed works. The keyboard player in our band turned me on to it many years ago. It's nothing new really. It's shared by both Eastern and Western philosophy. Do you want to know how to test it?

I wasn't referring to love proper, in describing that heirarchy of needs. I was referring to any kind of need, particularly needs of higher self-awareness/ consciousness, which is what we're discussing here of course.

Nevertheless your response got me to thinking, that this notion of ' spreading the love' in, say, a universal Greek style ( phila, philautia, ludus, agape, etc.) perhaps, might go a long way in achieving that end goal of interconnectedness and purpose.

In another pragmatic way, the simple example would be testing the law of attraction by virtue of engaging in life and with people sporting a smile on one's face, versus a sad, angry or melancholy one.

Life is about relationships; we are all interconnected. But it truly starts with self-confidence and self-love/philautia... .

Thoughts?

I wonder if loving and being loved isn't supposed to change that attitude. On one hand, love means caring, which implies suffering. — simeonz

I feel the need to briefly elaborate here, only because this quote from cognitive science stays with me to this day:

'All he knows is that he is desperate for love. What he doesn't know is, that he will continue to strive [after he finds love].'

We are Beings who are never satisfied; we are trapped in a life of striving (or doing). Much like in our stream of consciousness. After one need is satisfied, it's replaced with another. I say, why not channel the energy...…..

Forrest....that's pretty rockin dude! Love the website!!!

It's kind of ironic you mentioned this, I was just reading today that Millennial's are now considered the therapy generation.

I don't have any philosophical insights other than a sort of alternative-pragmatism. Meaning, I myself, replace therapy with hobbies and other recreational sorts of interests. Examples include anything that offers an adrenaline rush, endorphin high; riding dirt bikes, jetskiis, performing music, etc. and/or on the other side of the spectrum; meditation, hot tub, sunlight, boating, nude sunbathing, nature, etc...

If nothing else it's way to fellowship and stay connected.

Hey CtW!

Just to speak for myself, I only argued through the lens of LP because it was an intriguing comparison to other analytical approaches. For instance another distinction could be simple deductive reasoning ( a priori ) vs. Inductive reasoning (a posteriori). Or perhaps Modus Tollens ( not quite as analytical, from a ' formal logic ' point of view), or anything that Kant critiqued more or less... .

What are you thinking?

"Chronological Addendum"

25. Feb 6, 2018: A federal court approved a $25 million settlement with students who said they were duped by Donald Trump and his now-defunct Trump University, which promised to teach them the "secrets of success" in the real estate industry.

Documents made public through the litigation revealed that some former Trump University managers had given testimony about its unscrupulous and exploitative business practices. One sales executive testified that the operation was “a facade, a total lie.” Another manager called it a “fraudulent scheme.”

Other records showed how Mr. Trump had overstated the depth of his involvement in the programs. Despite claims that Mr. Trump had handpicked instructors, he acknowledged in testimony that he had not.

Despite its name, Trump University, which ceased operations in 2010, was not a licensed university.

You, Frank and @Wayfarer agree, that mind is not something material. So if it's not made of matter, what is it made of? There is nothing to make things out of in this world, but matter. — god must be atheist

Interesting question(s) no doubt.

The analogy of 'jogging' made me think of immaterial/material entities and processes and/or metaphysical phenomena. For instance, if one thinks of jogging or rather wants to actually go jogging, somehow either the conscious mind brings it into cognizance, or the subconscious mind creates impulses and/or subliminal imagery relative to the Will (the will to go jogging). In any case, it's an esoteric, immaterial and/or metaphysical process.

If, on the other hand, it [cognition] was not a metaphysical process, then when one wants to go jogging, one could theoretically go to a library and look-up jogging, or refer to a binder somewhere showing images of a person jogging. Which in turn, naturally would involve material entities/processes; not immaterial entities/processes.

And that all would mean every time we will to do something, we would not be able to actually do anything until we were shown an objective reality of that something. In this case, a picture of something.

And even if one were to argue Emergent entities/genetic codes causing action, one would still be left with how they would occur from material reality.

what do you think?

love that isolate and exclude opportunities to increase awareness, connection and collaboration - out of fear. — Possibility

Hello P !

And what is your theory behind such a fear?

becomes an excuse to act without thinking, which I don’t believe should be an acceptable baseline for humanity. The capacity to be aware of, to evaluate and then redefine a ‘default’ position is part of what makes us human, what sets u — Possibility

There's an important point to be made here. I am not talking about volition. What I'm referring to is intrinsic psychological behavior that relates to one's natural state of being or genetics. Psychological homeostasis basically means I can try to change many things, but certain core things I cannot change.

I myself, have given three defining features in a previous post, but no one really made a comment on it one way or another. — schopenhauer1

For the most part I agree with Schop1 analysis from that previous post.

As an existentialist I try very hard to be conscious of dichotomization. And in the context of analytical philosophers and logical positivism, I don't take the approach as an exercise or need to renounce the

lower

in order to become

higher

. In other words I don't repudiate analytical philosophy on an exclusive basis. It's just another tool as it were.

I think LP showed how practicing philosophy is a process. Unlike many other domains and processes, they generally all, have their limitations and proper contextual usage. It taught me that one must first analyze the question in order to discover what it means. And to discover what a question means is identical with discovering how one should go about answering it. That's at least one thing LP taught us.

However, examples of the glaring limitations relating to analytic's, would be statements such as:

1. We can never know the true nature of existence or being.
2. I can never know that you have a mind.
3. No men are free, but everyone is determined by his past.
4. Human beings are never satisfied.
5. Why do I behave like I do. My mind says one thing; my will says another.
6. All events must have a cause

Since those statements/ questions and their truth value cannot be empirically verified or calculated and deduced through formal analysis/logic, they are nonsensical to the LP/ analytical philosopher. And that of course raises at least one argument for its limited usage. It can't explain the nature of our existence, let alone our conscious existence.

Yep. It fits the reverse Modus Tollens principle: if it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, smells like a duck, it probably is a duck.

As Adam Schiff so well articulated in his closing argument on Friday....use of common sense can most likely go a long way here... . In short, his [Trump's] behavior suggests guilt. Otherwise, if one was not guilty, one would not block documents/witnesses. But rather, provide such evidence documents/witnesses to exonerate oneself.

Thanks Schop1.

I like Schopenhauer, particular his metaphysical philosophy. For instance when I studied music, he was really the only 'philosopher proper' to really touch the subject matter. He acquiesced to the fact it [music]was a genuine phenomenon, affecting human cognition in a way which could not truly be explained using rational analytical methods (neither a priori or a posteriori empirical approach). Similarly, his views about the Will and/or the Metaphysical Will in Nature was revealing and something beyond rational explanation.

My short answer to your most intriguing question about how Analytics' would try to explain, say, the Will, would be some euphemistic denial including most likely an extraneous exposition that at best, would indeed result in the need to transcend such nonsense via the infamous Kantian escape from that 'dogmatic slumber'.

To posit the obvious, once again, I would have to argue that dichotomizing a priori and a posteriori kinds of truth's through Analytical philosophy (Logical Positivism), represents yet another dangerous paradigm to overcome. Kant saw that of course. He saw the need to go beyond and transcend causation, as a normal human response to the existential human condition. Call him a sensitive, intuitive, self-aware man, I don't know... .

At the end of the day, I really don't know how the Analytical philosopher would try to circumvent the obvious. Being an existentialist myself, I would have to default to cognitive science/ Maslow here: 'What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you.'

I would love to hear from other's....or perhaps you might could elucidate some... .

24. 1/24/20- An audio tape surfaced from Ukraine/Giuliani associate Lev Parnas that revealed not only that Trump lied about not knowing Lev Parnas (repeat of yet another lie ala Michael Cohen/Stormy Daniels), but was caught on tape saying 'Get rid of her, take her out' thug mentality/intimidation toward our own Ambassador for Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

This tape is further evidence of Trump's guilt relative to wanting no 'internal' opposition to political cheating/investigating political rival Biden. Although a President can certainly have the power to hire/fire appointed positions, this also speaks to the fact that he continues to lie to the public about things. Last week he denied knowing him 14 times in one White House question and answer session, then he denied it again last Wednesday, this time saying: 'I don't know him, other than he's sort of like a groupie.'

Thanks P!

Just for clarification purposes, I failed to mention one other point about Romantic Love. From my particular experience relative to my 'selfish' (unhealthy blocking-out the rest of the world) kind of sojourn between consenting adults, I wanted to share a brief observation.

My theory needs to include a phenomenon of an introvert/extrovert dichotomy. Meaning, I think, that an introverted person viz Romantic Love communicates through physical intimacy and/or love making. Maybe not exclusively, but I am thinking about homeostasis or one's default position here.

I know from my experience, since my partner was introverted (almost to the extreme) that she communicated through physical intimacy. Although I can't describe it, I could feel that in sort of a metaphysical way. For example I could tell by looking at her, in the eyes, during love making. It was kind of understood and unspoken. (It was powerful yet ineffable.)

I still want to elaborate on your last post, but want the aforementioned to stand alone.