Focusing on race is the problem to begin with, and will always arrive at racist conclusions. — NOS4A2

This is not aimed at you. I don't know who you are or where you came from. Saying that we shouldn't look at race is what people who don't remember that for 400 years, all we looked at was race say. It also doesn't take into account the burden of disrespect and discrimination that our society still places on black people. "Why can't we all just be friends" is easy for a white person to say.

Let's see, what changes have been made because the law takes race into account - black people can vote, black and white people can marry each other, black people cannot be excluded from public facilities, black people don't have to ride at the back of the bus, black people can, at least in theory, have equal schools, black people cannot be discriminated on in hiring...... The US Supreme Court ruled that States could not prohibit people of different races from getting married the year I graduated from high school. It was the most wonderfully named court case in history - Loving vs. the Commonwealth of Virginia.

3 year olds can buy alcohol (legally, anyway). — Bitter Crank

I think you meant "can't." If not, you'll be getting a lot of visitors in Minnesota soon.

White privilege in the US is like Han privilege in China. Whites and Han aren't the only people living in their respective countries, but they have been and are the majority and arranged things to their liking. — Bitter Crank

Sure, but the position of blacks is different, at least in the US. The level of dislike and distrust felt for them is higher, and in most cases you can't hide that you're black. I can't speak for other countries and cultures.

I think that a discussion where the term "hate speech" is banned and you have to actually say precisely what you want to ban would play out in an entirely different way. — Judaka

I like this idea. Let's make a list of statements that would/should/could be included in hate speech. We'll delete specifics. I don't think the moderators will tolerate some:

• [A certain group of people] are not capable of being rational. They are slaves to their emotions. Giving them the vote was a mistake.
• [A certain ethnic group of people] control the government for their own financial gain.
• [A certain racial group of people] are genetically less intelligent than [another group of people.]
• [A certain ethnic group of people] are mostly involved in organized crime.
• All

This content is for members only.

If you grouped people by economic status you’d find individuals of a variety of races and ethnicities. — NOS4A2

Of course, but I don't see how that changes anything I said.

White privilege is not about wealth, but “an invisible knapsack” of privileges afforded to members of certain races. It’s invisible because, well, it doesn’t exist. — NOS4A2

As I've said, I'm coming around to the position that focusing on money rather than race will be the most effective way of helping people. As for white privilege, well, yes, it does exist.

'Physicality' (of chairs etc) is merely one possible aspect of that interaction. 'Things' such as 'love', 'understanding', 'God', etc...may lack such an aspect, but may still have consistent social usage. — fresco

I am not a systematic student of either philosophy in general or the philosophers you reference specifically, so maybe my take is naive. But that's never stopped me before.

Doesn't it all come back to definitions? If we can define a word well, clearly, enough and if the people in the discussion can agree on that definition, can't we point to love just as well as we can point to the moon?

There was a recent discussion on the forum of the meaning of "reification," which means "when you treat something immaterial — like happiness, fear, or evil — as a material thing." In that discussion, I wrote that everything we can talk about is a reification, "moon" as much as "love." Others disagreed.

Surely if scientists found philosophy useful for achieving their scientific goals and purposes, they would embrace it.

Thus, anyone whose opinion it is that scientists need philosophy, or would better able to achieve their goals, or would choose better goals, needs to present compelling arguments for those opinions. — Brainglitch

It's not what scientists find useful that's important. It's what makes good science, and that's not just for scientists to decide. People, non-scientists, make important decisions based on scientific results. People, non-scientists, pay for scientific investigations. People, non-scientists, must face the consequences of bad or poorly chosen science.

Scientists are not necessarily the best people, or at least not the only people, to decide how science should be practiced. They are not necessarily the best people to select "scientific goals and purposes." They tend to be narrowly focused on what is of interest to them or what has benefits for them. Many, most? don't think of the greater context of the work they do.

past injustices - which can't be undone and aren't a real factor now. People say they are a real factor only because they separate people based on race - if you don't do that, then what you've got is a lot of poor people - though for different reasons - dividing them by something practical like "where is help most urgently needed?" for instance is better than "this guy is black and that guy isn't, I mean come on. — Judaka

@Bitter Crank has said explicitly elsewhere that he considers class (i.e. money) more important than race. It is not true that "past injustices ... aren't a real factor now." I think I feel that race is a more important factor than BC does.

BC - sorry if I've put words in your mouth.

The title says it all, I basically argued that empathy gives us an unrealistically clear picture of what someone else is going through because we are oblivious to the variety of nature/nurture differences that exist. — Judaka

You are a tough cookie. That's not a bad thing. I think I understand the limitations of my abilities, and I do the best I can. It's something people do. It's a skill. It takes practice and some are better at it than others.

You can't but your brain tries — khaled

Yes. As I said, it's trying, caring that's most important.

Empathy is the experience of understanding another person's thoughts, feelings, and condition from his or her point of view, rather than from one's own. I am asking in terms of how accurate that is. — BitterClassroomixo

Not really. It's not understanding exactly - it's the imaginative sharing of experience.

Not much can be done really and exactly; I feel your pain, but not really or exactly, but just slightly, vaguely, imaginatively. And that is called - really and exactly - "empathy". — unenlightened

Yes.

How does listening to the bad experiences others went through allow others to understand exactly how the person felt? I do believe that different people have different coping limits. Is it even possible to empathise or is it just an acknowledgement of bad experiences with a mix of sympathy? — BitterClassroomixo

Of course people have different experiences, but we're all people. There is a lot of common ground. It's not exact, not necessarily accurate. And it's not necessarily about bad things and it's not the same as sympathy. Here's how it works for me - try to see people as they are without judgment; try to imaginatively put yourself in their shoes; Care how they feel; Try to feel compassion; try to be kind. Some people are good at this, some less so.

That's how I experience it. How does it feel to you? As I said, it is nowhere near exact. I often find out I'm wrong, but a lot of time I'm right, or at least pretty right, or maybe sort of right. Are you a young person - it tends to get better with age and experience. It helps if you like people, like being around them.

The most important thing is to try, care.

You are criticizing other countries for how they protect free speech, ( which includes banning hate speech) by
specifying it is impossible to ban hate speech and
enforce other forms of free speech. — Wittgenstein

No, I'm not. If I say "If you drop that rock on your sister's head, it will hurt her," it's not criticism, it's a statement of what I see as fact.

You are correct.

Is it arrogant to say an argument is flawed when we notice a flawed argument? You said my argument is flawed, so by that token you're arrogant too. — leo

I don't remember saying your argument was flawed.

I said that they failed to convince me because they are flawed, not the other way around. — leo

Yes, you are correct. Still arrogant. Still laughable.

And I addressed every one of them. Here is my argument again, where is the flaw? — leo

As I've said numerous times now, I'm not interested in going any further with this discussion. I see it as futile.

If l am not mistaken, l think you are suggesting that discussions of metaphysics are language games. — Wittgenstein

Forgot to respond to this comment.

I'm not familiar with the science or philosophy of language, so I don't really know what you mean by "language game." But in a general sense I think everything we know about the world is dependent on language.

Seeing how your arguments are flawed, they fail to convince me. Meanwhile you fail to point out the flaw in my argument, which I stated as concisely as possible again. — leo

Saying that my arguments are flawed because they failed to convince you is ....arrogant certainly. I'll go further - laughable.

I made my best effort to point out the flaws in your argument last time we talked. I failed and gave up. I don't see any reason to try again.

In response to your request for me to respond to your examples

The discussion of time for instance is always confusing because the concept of eternity can mean two different things, it can either mean the non-existence of time or time going on forever without ending. — Wittgenstein

I've thought about time a lot. So, I guess the questions is - is it real. Yes, I think it makes sense to think of it as real. We measure it. Other properties and behavior of matter and energy depend on it. We can manipulate physical phenomena and affect time. Look up the arrow of time or the direction of time. Wikipedia has a good summary as do other places. Personally, I am most comfortable with the thermodynamic explanation of the direction of time, although, as you'll see, there are many explanations which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

The problem of existence is even in more mess. In my opinion the transition from non existence to existence will never be understood and our understanding will end there. — Wittgenstein

I would definitely say it's a metaphysical question. I personally like my understanding of the Taoist understanding of existence. See below. But there are lots of other valid ways of see existence, depending on the context.

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name. The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Every being in the universe
is an expression of the Tao.
It springs into existence,
unconscious, perfect, free,
takes on a physical body,
lets circumstances complete it. ...

The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities. It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God....

The problem of free will and the soul — Wittgenstein

Whether or not there is free will is a metaphysical question. I've always thought it is a question whether or not it makes sense to hold ourselves and others responsible for our actions. Looking at my own life, I think it usually does. I recognize there are situations where it would make more sense not to.

As for the soul and God - things brings up a fly in my ointment. Religious issues are usually lumped in with metaphysics when I think it often doesn't make sense, e.g the existence of a God that exists independent of ourselves and the universe. That seems to me to be a matter of fact, and therefore does not belong as a part of metaphysics. On the other hand, I think the general question of whether it makes sense in some situations to think of the universe as a living, perhaps conscious thing is metaphysical question. It's a way of looking, thinking, about things. It's not testable. Sometimes it may be useful.

There, there's three.

If you won't believe me but you will believe Wikipedia, maybe you will believe the Nobel laureate in physics Frank Wilczek, he says the same stuff as me, somehow when I say something it's not true but when Nobel laureates say it it's true, somehow appeals to authority is what serves as convincing arguments on this forum, so there you go: — leo

I assume we are talking about the issue with Newton's Laws. It's fine to give references to smart people who are familiar with the subject. I can find plenty of quotes to support my position. I am also capable of seeing for myself. This isn't really a matter of fact. It's a matter of the definition of the word "flawed."

We've been back and forth but you still haven't got it. — leo

As I stated the last time we had this discussion, I've tried my best arguments and failed to convince you of my position. I don't see any reason to continue.

Newton's laws stood for several centuries until they were found to be flawed. — leo

They are not flawed in the sense you are describing. It has been acknowledged that they are not applicable in some situations, e.g. when the speed of a phenomenon is greater than about 10% of the speed of light, i.e. phenomena at human scale. Engineering uses Newton's laws almost exclusively because it's right, i.e. it works.

Indeed, if dark matter was really there, the plenty of experiments on dark matter should have most likely detected it by now. — leo

You and I have been back and forth on this issue previously. Dark matter has been detected. It was detected by observing the gravitational behavior of the visible universe. Do you think I have to hold it in my hand or lick it to see how it tastes before there is evidence. Just about everything we know of that is outside human scale we know indirectly, including dark matter.

I think you have misunderstood what "know" and "evidence" mean.

I still think these two subjects, while both are 'philosophy', are quite distinct. — Pattern-chaser

Well, if Wikipedia disagrees with you, you must be wrong. More importantly, I disagree with you.

I don't really care what we call it. There are intellectual underpinnings to science I would typically consider as part of philosophy. Just in the course of this thread, I've started convincing myself that that distinction is not useful one.

I haven't convinced you with my best argument. I don't have anywhere else to go. I'll fall back on an unimpeachable source - Because Wikipedia says so.

Metaphysics itself was never in doubt; metaphysics as a science, never was at all. — Mww

I think you're saying that metaphysics is clearly not a science. I agree that metaphysics is not a science by itself, but there are a lot of smart people who disagree with you. As I've said, I think it is an indispensable part of science.

I don't think "proud" is the right word to use, maybe grateful might be more suitable? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Who are you to tell @Teller what he feels or should feel or what is suitable for him to feel.

Also, as you can see below, he acknowledged his gratitude.

Perhaps I should have used the word "grateful" instead of "proud". For not one minute have I regarded myself of having deserved any advantages I may have had. — Teller

To make “privilege” a property of a certain race is nonsensical , not to mention racist. Privilege and it’s opposites applies only to individuals, not races. — NOS4A2

It is neither nonsensical nor racist. It's what it is. White people, in general, on average, have more money than black people, in general, on average.

His answer was no.It is like Godels incompleteness theorem, it belongs to the logical system but at the same time comments on the nature of such systems and the limitations. — Wittgenstein

Maybe that would be true if metaphysical questions had true or false answers. They don't. Metaphysics is a matter of agreement, consensus. It's the rules we agree to play by.

This question does not take into consideration the benefits derived from discussing metaphysical problems and l should have specified that, — Wittgenstein

Isn't this an example of the problem I noted - you did not define what you meant by "meaningful."

Second of all, if all approaches have their own merit, why do we adopt a certain position when tackling metaphysical problems and does that mean 1000 years of philosophy was simply based on misunderstanding. — Wittgenstein

Specific metaphysical approaches may or may not be useful in specific situations, to address specific questions. There is no "one size fits all" metaphysical approach. The key word is "useful." Almost everything in the past 1,000 years of philosophy was simply based on misunderstanding. Yes...well... maybe that goes a little too far.

I agree with you on this point but that raises some problems as l have mentioned above.The most common approach in tackling metaphysical theories is to adopt a scientific strategy, especially in english philosophy lately and try to pinpoint each terms, have them defined and that causes problems precisely because metaphysical objects are either falsely constructed or they do not need to have an objective reality attached to them. — Wittgenstein

As I indicated, the important thing about metaphysical issues is that we agree on an approach. You can't move on to deal with reality, whatever you think that means, until that is done.

It can be more than just defining terms in some cases like l have mentioned above, people may never even agree on the terms to begin with and there are countless other problems too. — Wittgenstein

That's the advantage of setting the ground rules in the OP. You get to determine the terms of the discussion, including definitions. Others, if they want to play by the rules, either follow along or go elsewhere. Alternatively, you can make the definitions the point of the discussion.

All of that is why it's important to respect the OP. As I've said before, I have not always done that successfully, but I try.

That won't be the case for the Jews, which is actually not a national identity, but a tribal+religious one. Otherwise, it would already have happened, and it clearly didn't. — alcontali

In my experience that isn't true. It's certainly true that many Jews maintain a close relationship with their traditions, probably to a greater extent than many other ethnic groups. But for most I've met, although they may still go to Temple, many marry outside their religion; live, work, go to school, and have close friends among non-Jews; and consider themselves Americans and local community members.

The confusion caused by language in philosophy was addressed by positivists. You stated that we should deal with problems rather than terms in which they are discussed. Like here below
Too much attention payed to the nature of words, not enough to the nature of the world. — Wittgenstein

I think that's probably unrealistic. In a very real (read "useful") way, the world is words.

Well, according to the article, it was supposed to be widespread in the first place ... — alcontali

We've reached the limits, maybe beyond the limits, of my knowledge.

Definitely beyond the limits.

I doubt that African-Americans want "assimilation". Well, not sure. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. — alcontali

The Jews certainly don't want it. They must like their own clan and their own Rabbinical take on Second-Temple Judaism, because otherwise they would have dropped these things a long time ago already. The fact that they are still around after almost 2000 years, points to the idea that they probably do not even want to assimilate, even when offered the opportunity, which wasn't always the case either. — alcontali

It's not a matter of what they want or don't want. Many ethnic groups maintain cultural and traditional attachments to their ethnic heritage, but still fit in. In my limited experience, although Italians, Irish, and Jews maintain a sense of national identify, it is just one among others. Most consider themselves Americans and citizens of their cities and towns. They consider ethnic and religious loyalties lower down the list. In my middle class Massachusetts town, many of positions of community leadership are taken by people of Italian extraction. It's not that they have forgotten that, but they are members of our community first.

Taken together it might be concluded that consanguinity has social advantages. — alcontali

It also has genetic disadvantages. Marriage of first cousins is generally allowed in the US. I have no problem with that, but if it became widespread, there would probably be negative consequences.

African-Americans were not in the driver's seat in that respect. They did not choose to identify according to race. That decision was clearly made for them. — alcontali

I think the same is true for other minorities in America - Irish, Hispanic, Italian, Jewish. It seems to me the difference is that those other minorities will fairly quickly join the mainstream. Maybe that will happen eventually for black people, but it hasn't happened in 400 years and there is still a long way to go.

First, a small irony - "Is discussing metaphysics meaningful ?" is a metaphysical question.

Rather than answer your specific examples, I'll make three comments. First - discussing metaphysics and epistemology has had a great influence on me intellectually. I'm an engineer. My job is to understand things and how I know what I know. Discussions here on the forum, including reading I've done at other members suggestion, have been enjoyable and eye-opening.

Second - most issues typically considered part of metaphysics are not matters of fact and aren't true or false, they are matters of viewpoint, approach, usefulness. Examples - free will vs. determinism; the existence of objective reality; the meaning of "truth."

Third - A lot of the issues you decry could be addressed if people would define their terms at the beginning of the discussion, preferably in the OP.

As soon as people identify strongly with race, then race politics can never be far away. Still, the concept of "race" has always been nebulous, because it is not just about skin colour. — alcontali

To some extent, in the US it's the other way around. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Republican Party started an effective and self-aware program to use race to move southern white people away from the Democratic Party. That program continues today and continues to warp our politics. One major effect is the climate of distrust and resentment that sometimes seems to be the defining characteristic of American politics.

Identifying with race and/or nationality are feeble substitutes for identifying with extended family and religion. — alcontali

Maybe, but I don't think that applies to black people, Hispanics, and other unpopular minorities. White American society defined black people as black starting 400 years ago. During most of that period, they were slaves and their humanity was considered worthless. I think questioning their co-option of that identity as a weapon and sign of strength misses the point.

In many ways, you and I are very similar. I often start out to write something only to find you have already done so. On the other hand, I envy you your historical, social, and political awareness.

START TALKING ABOUT CLASS AND STOP TALKING ABOUT RACE. CLASS IS WHERE THE MONEY IS. — Bitter Crank

Although, as I said elsewhere in this thread, I do think that money does probably make the biggest difference, it bothers me to ignore race. Black people face unique discrimination in our society. Not having to face that is a privilege.

But I wasn't talking about science and the philosophy of science, I was talking about science and metaphysics. I thought we all were.... :chin: I don't see how science could 'take over' from metaphysics any more than I can see how cage-fighting could 'take over' from wallpaper. They aren't the same thing, and they don't address the same issues. They seem to me to be complementary. — Pattern-chaser

I was trying to do two things 1) Avoid the confusion I may have caused in the past by lumping epistemology in with metaphysics. That's why I called it philosophy of science rather than metaphysics. 2) Be clear about what I include as part of science and what I don't. There's a lot to philosophy, a lot to metaphysics. Not all of it has to do with science. I think the philosophy of science belongs with science, but not morals, aesthetics, politics, etc.

The irony is that the political problems we are having right now reflect the fact that political parties have lost their authority and coherence. In the past, the party leadership's job was to unify a diverse party around a comprehensive platform. The leadership enforced party discipline to keep the wild and crazy guys, who are running things now, from taking over. Parties are almost inconsequential now. Trump would never have been the nominee of the Republican Party if the Party still had the power and authority it used to.

Yeah, I'm just waiting when smart and intelligent people will start acknowledging their debt to the stupid and apologize. I mean, without stupid people around they wouldn't be so smart and so privileged, right? — ssu

It's not clear to me. Are you saying black people are stupid or working class people are stupid?