I merely emulate Wittgenstein, who rightly noted that a serious and good work of philosophy could be (and I would add has been) written consisting entirely of jokes.

I was under the impression that intelligence of ANY kind had already been banned on this site.

Your confusion is understandable. Incontinence will result in voiding, and so causes the void. But the void isn't itself incontinent.

If the Constitution is changed, or abolished, it will have no more to do with whether it's "legitimate" than when it was created. Systems of law exist regardless of morality or principles. Laws apply whether they're good or bad.

Perhaps. But one should ask oneself, sometimes at least, what is achieved. Even if we merely play games, then at least there's a winner and loser.

I wonder if our fascination with questions that don't matter has ever been given serious study. But now I think of it, that may not matter either.

It may be that I don't understand what you mean by "external world." If you mean by it the world we're part of, I don't know why you call it "external." External to what?

I certainly don't think we can't know the people and things we interact with every moment of our lives. What reason is there to think I don't?
Judging from our own conduct and how we live our lives, none of us actually doubt their existence or believe we don't know them. Claiming we nonetheless can doubt their existence or can't really know them is insist on a difference which clearly makes no difference.

[quote/Outlander]Just because someone convinces themself, or perhaps an entire society or even the whole world a given something is true and that a given something else is false, doesn't mean what they have convinced themself or others of is actually true or false."[/quote]
-- Outlander

I'm not sure what distinction you're making between true and false and actually true and actually false. More generally speaking, I'm sorry but I don't understand your point.

Finding the way out of the fly bottle means there is no "external" world-- there is no world separate from us, in other words. We're not observers of the rest of the world; we participate in it interact with its other constituents every moment of our lives.

So, being free of the fly bottle doesn't mean one accepts the existence of world "external" to us. One accepts, instead, that there's a world and that we're a part of it.

I don't understand. If someone finds they've been trapped in a fly bottle of their own making, they're free of it. Their metaphorical eyes have been opened (the fly bottle is of course only a metaphor as well). They're to be congratulated, not denigrated.

Only if you're still buzzing around in the fly bottle. Once out, you may dare to think about, e g., your interaction with the rest of the world as an organism in an environment of which you're a part, and with others. But for those who like being in the bottle they've built, they may continue to indulge themselves.

I'm not sure what nation has laws making employment discrimination a criminal offense. Please let me know which does. Nor do I know of any jurisdiction in the U.S. that provides it's employment discrimination to hold an opinion. Making employment decisions because someone belongs.to a particular race or sex is different from merely holding an opinion, though.

My preferred interpretation of W's statement is that the fly bottle is something the fly has contrived and by which it mistakenly thinks of itself as apart from the rest of the world instead of a part of the world. So, showing it the way out would include correcting misconceptions, e.g. the belief in an "external world" which can't truly be known, mind/body and other dualisms. The fly bottle is self-imposed.

There's no place like home, it's said.

I like what Wittgenstein said about the purpose of philosophy: "To show the fly the way out of the fly bottle."

Criminalizing the verbal/written expression of hate IN ITSELF is too much like criminalizing thought or feelings, for me. I'd rather avoid implementing thoughtcrime.

Now and then, I take comfort in in the fact that the law (at least here in God's Favorite Country) has not (yet?) made the use of "hate speech" a crime. But perhaps because we're sadly and self-righteously inclined to equate the law with morality, there are laws which penalize hate of a social group when it motivates commission of a crime. The combination of this kind of hate with an already defined crime results in something described, ingeniously, as a "hate crime."

Certainly it exists. It's over there, next to somethingness.

My understanding is, very simply put, objectivity in ethics is the view that moral claims aren't merely personal beliefs and opinions, but their value and validity may be determined regardless of personal preferences. For a more sophisticated and complete discussion see 180 Proof's post or do some research.

Just thought I'd note that the definitions you're referring to are those used in epistemology and metaphysics. You might find those applied to ethics are a trifle different.

Subjectivity in ethics, as I understand it, treats moral assertions as expressions of opinion; nothing more.

Well, feel free to send me messages without using words, then, or incoherently and without explanation, so I'll understand. I'm waiting. I'll let you know when I receive them.

If only objectivity (the state of being objective) was dominant! Then there would be less bias, prejudice, favoritism, etc. in the world. That would make ME happy. Would it make you sad?

One of the things I like about analytic philosophy and OLP, by the way, is their emphasis on care in defining terms and using language.

As you know from reading Pierre Hadot, there were ancient schools of philosophy that taught ways of living that promoted what they considered happiness. They were founded on reason, though, following from in the case of the Stoics compliance with the Universal Reason they thought was the generative force of the Universe.

I think philosophers should have the courage to admit that they aren't poets or artists, and the wisdom to acknowledge that what poetry and art do is much better done by poets and artists than by philosophers.

Assuming you "became a human" in the normal way, then the chances that you wouldn't be a human are "vanishing small."

Why not just say that, based on the evidence we have, humans are rare?

Why do you think that you, a human, could have become something else? Do you think that you existed before you became a human, and that the Universe or someone or something made you a human instead of, e.g, a bunny?

So much for consistency and clarity. What a relief it is to dispense with them!

My little comment was addressed to the consideration of the existence of God. I feel it's futile to discuss whether God exists. That question, if it is a true question, won't be answered. How or why the universe exists is a question which may be usefully discussed, but if it can be answered it will be answered by science, not by philosophers thinking about it really hard.

What the concept of God means and whether it matters will vary from person to person, I think..

We've led different lives. Mine was more traditional middle class. The usual trek through the education system; working factory jobs to help pay the way. I'm a younger Boomer, and they stopped using the draft lottery with those born the year before I was, so even Vietnam didn't sufficiently radicalize me (or frighten me). I see how the recession impacted you more than it did me.

And I've always been cynical, alas. So, it didn't surprise me that much when Boomers fell under the spell of filthy lucre. But the extent to which the elites want to control our choices and lives as well as profit from them does surprise me.

I think we agree that the mood of our nation has changed. I think we agree that the difficult times our parents faced shaped them.

But what generation since theirs has (as a generation) experienced similar times? Most Boomers, I think, abandoned any desire they may have had to serve others and elected to serve themselves. They were used to being served, and accepted it as their due. They became the self-indulgent elites that, together with their progeny, rule us now. They feel entitled to rule and tell others what to do, and more than ever have the means to convince us that this is the way it should be.

This is the example they set.

Such a witty fellow, Roosevelt. Happy Days indeed. Songs like Brother, Can You Spare a Dime rang truer in those dark times, and were even popular.

My parents lived through the Great Depression and WWII. If we Boomers carry the attitudes and memories of those dark times, I don't think they weigh on most us very heavily, or that they've ever done so. Many of us were and still are positively wanton in comparison with our mothers and fathers. We have some responsibility for today's expectations.

How nice to see this subject still being addressed.

You seem to address the beauty of people, as opposed to, e.g., works of art.

As to the former, I think it becomes a subject of philosophical discussion mostly in the case of older men and women; primarily men. They feel its loss or the loss of their ability to fully enjoy it, and dwell on it. It's a kind of romanticized lechery, perhaps. Ever read Thomas Mann's Death in Venice?

To the extent philosophy "teaches" us anything about everyday life, it is that it serves to distracts us from it.

I haven't been here for some time. I forgot (if I ever knew) that I'd be sent an email if I was mentioned. I thought I'd respond in this case. I am responding.

I should say first I don't like large law firms. Skadden is very large. I was once associated with a much smaller "large" firm, with over a hundred lawyers. It was a snake pit. Happily, my experience in opposing large firms has been good. This has been gratifying. Their litigators, at least, are unimpressive in my experience.

Regardless, it must be understood that ultimately, they're devoted to making money, and nothing else. Even their "pro bono" work is done for marketing purposes. They generally have departments devoted to soliciting work from politicians and lobbyists. They're not strangers to the world of politics and its peculiarities.

That said, I feel as Cohen does. I suspect Paul Weiss made a decision it thought was best based on monetary considerations. I suspect Skadden will as well. If they conclude defying the contemptable conduct of this regime won't significantly effect their profits and book of business, they may do so. If not, they'll comply, possibly hoping they'll outlast the regime and have the opportunity to do what's right in the future.

Thank you.

I believe “supernatural” is a vacuous term because we do not yet know the limits of the natural world. Once, lightening was considered supernatural. I get in my car, talk into a little handheld device, and it directs me to a destination 100 miles away (i.e. mobile phone and GPS) or allows me to talk to someone on another continent. A few centuries ago, that would have been called supernatural. — Art48

In an earlier post I noted that I'm uncertain whether what you refer to as "The One"

is meant to be supernatural (outside of or apart from nature) or a part of nature (the universe). — Ciceronianus

For purposes of this thread, that's how I'm using the word "supernatural." Do you think "The One" to be outside or apart from nature/the universe, or a part of nature/the universe?

If you think "The One" is apart from nature, then you may if you wish ascribe to it whatever characteristics you like, and claim that nature isn't really true because only The One is true. That sort of thing's been done by some philosophers and most religious believers who worship a transcendent God for many centuries. It's not a position I can take, as I think there's no basis on which we can know what "transcends" the universe. But if "The One" is a part of nature then I don't think you can distinguish it from the rest of nature because it's the only part that's "true."

The new physics isn’t simply ‘more true’ than the old, it is qualitatively different in its concepts, but in subtle ways that are easy to miss. — Joshs

The OP, or rather the attachment to it, seems to me to err by contrasting "what works" with "what's true"--e.g., Newtonian physics may work, but it's not true. It reminds me of Russell's criticism of Pragmatism, or more accurately the straw man he called "Pragmatism." The notion that what's true is different qualitatively from what is established by our day-to-day interaction with the rest of the world minimizes the significance of our lives as part of the world, and separates us from what is significant, what is "true."

It's unclear to me whether what's being referred to as "The One" is meant to be supernatural (outside of or apart from nature) or a part of nature (the universe). If it's supernatural, it seems to me to suffer from the problems which result when a transcendence is assumed rather than immanence--I don't think we can know anything about what's "outside" of nature/the universe. But if some aspect of nature/the universe is being referred to, why can't that be a kind of materialism (in which what is "material" would include all of the universe)?

Fact is, I can readily admit I am simply trying to justify a degenerative habit. Whew. Thank God its over. — ENOAH

Well, that at least provides an explanation.

I think it's more a case of degenerating myself, but I've never watched an entire season of American Idol, I must admit.