There is nothing in the UN charter against voluntary uniting countries. — Isaac

In this case, there's nothing voluntary about it, so you don't actually have a point.

Why? — Isaac

Because NATO was never meant to be a moral agent, but an effective military alliance.

There is no law preventing expansion. — Isaac

The UN charter does.

You might as well say that we can avoid talking about the 'morality' of voting — Isaac

Voting is an individual act, not an institution, so you don't have a point.

If NATO are acting immorally, then supporting them is immoral. — Isaac

Back to category error. NATO is a military alliance between nations meant to protect its members, not to be a boy scout club. People ought to judge it on its own merit: whether or not it protects them.

The 'sin' for humanism and rationality is the unjustified assumption, the incomplete achievement of autonomy, etc. The battle against superstition and puerility/slavishness is endless. — igjugarjuk

But as Collingwood implies, there is no thought without premises. Without at its root some absolute unprovable presuppositions. An axiomatique is always there somewhere, often unconscious. Think of it as an operating system, without which no computer can function. The operating system provides a creed, a credo based on which computing can happen.

A clear writer minimizes the discomfort in interpretation. But clarity is not the only value. We also value a motivating dramatic context. We want to feel with the author. That emotional framing is not obviously secondary, unless we simply unphilosophically assume that philosophical truth is as cold a fact as a telephone number in a phone book. — igjugarjuk

I'm fine with poetry that helps relate to the essence of an issue, even with some rhetoric. In any case even a dry text seemingly avoiding any rhetorical effects... is itself using dryness for rhetorical effect!

Rightly or wrongly in aesthetic terms or our comfort, Derrida 'lives' his transcendence of various superstitions of philosophy (that it's only secondarily metaphorical or literary, that it's a solemn, serious business, ...) This is the main thing that pissed people off, IMO. Derrida is simply not an irrationalist. He's more serious about truth and reason than most people, just as Nietzsche was (hence his willingness to question the foundation of the philosophical project itself ( the idea of such a foundation?), perhaps the maximal philosophical gesture, its purity.)

Purity from what? If nothing human is foreign to philosophy, sin is philosophical, and as many holy men have told us, philosophy is sin.

The same people who love Wittgenstein (just as indulgent in his own way) reject Derrida, seemingly because Derrida is more of a jester than a holy ascetic.

Personally, I hold Wittgenstein as a fake, an imposter, a very sad clown. I'd rather read from a funny one.

He's got all the looks of a true philosopher, so aesthetic is apt in this way. If this take seems harsh, let me add that he played in stiff Cambridge a useful role, that of the guy who points to the inherent vagueness of things. Things, such as concepts, are often more vague than scolars think.

If I raise a canvas on my land just to frustrate the view my neighbour has, I might have a legal right but I'm then abusing that right. Intent matters and legitimacy is not a substitute for morality. — Benkei

So you are making a moral argument. There are a few problems with that, in these circumstances.

1. The point made by Apo was about legitimacy, not morality.

2. A few posters here have rightly pointed out that morality applies to individuals, not to institutions, so to speak of the morality of NATO is making a category error. One needs to morally indict presidents, generals and the likes but not a country or an alliance of countries. These entities need to be assessed against their stated goals, which does not to my knowledge include the boy scout pledge, or adherence to any other moral creed.

3. Even if one could morally indict a 'system' as wholly corrupt, eg if a vast majority of its leadership was found totally compromised morally speaking, and the rules of the system pipped in their favor, then who is to prosecute and indict these NATO officials and dignitaries with their deserved punishment?

God? Putin? Or even better, Putin as the scourge of God?

Therefore, the legitimacy of the intention/motive needs to be examined first. — Apollodorus

Motives have nothing to see with legitimacy. Hitler had good intentions too.

Thank you. That was neither clear nor informative.
— Olivier5

It was pretty accurate, from my limited POV. — igjugarjuk

Well, I guess it could be both unclear, uninformative and yet accurate.

Perhaps I was wrong to assumes that deconstruction has a clear objective and follows some sort of standard process. Maybe it's more fluid, creative, intuitive. Which is fine too.

, I, for one, never think there's anything useful in philosophy -- — Moliere

I beg to disagree. :-)

What interests me, personally and professionally, is the analysis and teasing out of hidden assumptions. I found out that Collingwood had usefully formalized this process. If Derrida does too, I could be interested.

If NATO has a “right of expansion”, so does Russia. If NATO can say that it feels “threatened” by Russia, Russia also can say that it feels threatened by NATO. — Apollodorus

Just like NATO has a right to welcome new voluntary members, Russia has a right to welcome whichever country, region or people willingly wishing to join it...

There are people for whom philosophy is not appropriate. That's OK. — Streetlight

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Morgenbesser's reply was "Ach, even if there were nothing, you would still be complaining." — Cuthbert

And I believe that's the best possible answer to that question.

Which part?

Thank you. That was neither clear nor informative.

[Derrida] sketches/develops the concept of this ur-language (or deep structure) and gives it, for complicated rhetorical reasons, the confusing name 'writing' (and lots of other names.) — igjugarjuk

That sounds too rhetorical or poetic for my practical taste. I attach much importance to conceptual clarity. A good workman keeps a neat set of tools, and a philosopher's tool are his concepts.

Our math these days depends on symbols that are only very awkwardly translated into English. We learn to think with these non-phonetic symbols. — igjugarjuk

Aka ideograms. Yes, modern math has rediscovered the power of ideograms. They are much more intuitive and shorter (essential almost) than alphabetic code can ever be.

Many alphabetic letters derive from ideograms originally. 'A' is an inverted cow head with horns.

As I understand it, it's a slicker version of Writingology. Basically there's a deep structure in sign systems that's more like writing than (an idealized vision of) speech, and 'writing' is repurposed to refer to this deeper structure. — igjugarjuk

Writing was historically derived from counting stuff. Oil, grain, sheep, cattle were counted for trade, and there was a need for some records for inventories and transactions; specifically in Sumer, where writing derived from accounting, and only applied secondarily to speech. Another source, in Egypt, was painting. The Egyptians progressively widened the use of standardized paintings of gods, humans and animals to 'word painting', apparently as an afterthought.

And then it took 2000 years to move from ideograms to the first alphabet. (Chinese never made the move)

So on these historical grounds I would disagree with idealising writing as some sort of Ur-language.

NATO must bear some responsibility for the invasion. — Apollodorus

What does that mean in practice, though?

Of Grammatology also has a great introduction, and lots of copies were printed, so one can get used copies pretty cheap from Amazon, etc. — igjugarjuk

I'm curious about the 'gramatology' label. Saussure called his topic 'linguistique générale".

You've just got to see an example, if you really want to know. One my favorites is Derrida's reading of Saussure (in Of Grammatology). — igjugarjuk

I'm familiar with Saussure so that'd be a good introduction i guess

Sette brevi lezioni di fisica by Carlo Rovelli. First book I manage to finish in Italian. :strong: :grin: It's very short though, as the title implies.

The 6 lessons of physics are truly amazing in terms of beauty, clarity and fun. The seventh one on the place of man is disappointing. Couldn't be otherwise I guess, given that the question is more biological than physical.

What does it do then?

But I'm not sure I gather why I should "reject" deconstruction... it just seems a bit silly. — Moliere

I never read Derrida. May I ask, what's the difference between "deconstruction" and "analysis"?

Deleted a moderation complaint and replies to that. — Benkei

I was pocking fun at it, not complaining.

The Centre for Strategic Communications (StratCom) of the Office of the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces has confirmed the death of Russian Major General Roman Kutuzov in a battle near Popasna in a Facebook post. "Major General Roman Kutuzov has been officially denazified and demilitarized," the statement said.

Earlier reports said that Russian Major General Roman Kutuzov was killed in battles near the town of Popasna in the Luhansk region.

Why the different treatment? — Isaac

Personally, I tend to trust Biden far more than I trust Putin.

You guys should start a new thread on epistemology. Your conversation is off topic here.

It's not literally the same, okay, but that's what it meant.

So it implies taking Ukraine as far as Kyiv.

To force a regime change, one of the things one must do is take the capital city.

when he attacked Ukraine on the 24th February, Putin clearly had the objective to take over the country, at least Kyiv and NovoRossija, perhaps to install a puppet government in place in Kyiv. And obviously he has had to limit his objectives. — ssu

That's literally what Macron reported Putin telling him:

Macron had said Putin "wanted to seize control of the whole of Ukraine. He will, in his own words, carry out his operation to 'de-Nazify' Ukraine to the end," a senior aide to the French leader told the AFP news agency.
3 March 2022

Guterres has already tried to get something done with the blockade already last month. It could be a way forward. And I think it would be good that the UN would gain some role in the conflict. — ssu

It's the same effort, I guess, reported about at inception and a month later. The article I posted was from Kommersant, a leading Russian economic daily, and was based on an interview of Guterres at a time when he could dare state that "the negotiations are on track", ie moving forward somehow.

Yes, it'd be good if the UN could show some utility at last. They can do neutral like nobody else, to the point of saying strictly nothing at times when you would want them to say something.

Perhaps letting at least some grain ships through would be a way for Russia to signal that it's open for some diplomatic approaches to end the war. In a way, it could be a start to ease the tensions. — ssu

Yes. Remember ping pong diplomacy?

For those poor anglosaxons among us, whose press is generally trash and even worse in war time as Chomsky rightly points out, here is some good news from Russia, courtesy of Courrier International:


Wheat: negotiations on the unblocking of Ukrainian ports are on track
The UN and Turkey will be the intermediaries in technical negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv to “free” Ukrainian cereals and at the same time open access for Russian cargo ships to European ports.

As the threat of a famine that could strike millions of people around the world grows, UN Secretary General António Guterres announced progress in negotiations on unblocking the export of Ukrainian wheat, as well as than on the removal of obstacles to access to Russian food resources and fertilizers on world markets, reports the Russian business daily Kommersant.

“We're making good progress, but we haven't seen any results yet. These are very complex issues and the interdependency of all their elements makes the negotiations particularly difficult”, he explained on June 1, while assuring that he was “fully confident” .

UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Martin Griffiths and UN Conference on Trade and Development Secretary-General Rebeca Grynspan are discussing a comprehensive deal that includes “the secure export of grain by sea and access to Russian products and fertilizers on world markets, particularly in developing countries”. Rebeca Grynspan has already traveled to Moscow on May 30, then directly to Washington the next day.

Seventy ships from 16 countries blocked

Kiev claims that it is "the blockade of Ukrainian ports on the Black Sea and the takeover of the Azov coastline by Russia that prevent Ukraine from exporting 22 million tonnes of grain", recalls the Russian title. Moscow rejects these accusations and points out that the Russian military regularly tries to open “maritime corridors” to let cargo ships out.

According to the Russian Defense Ministry, 70 ships from 16 countries are currently docked in the ports of Kherson , Nikolaev, Chernomorsk, Ochakov, Odessa and Yuzhny. “The risk of fire from Ukrainian forces and the presence of a large quantity of mines in the surrounding waters do not allow the ships to exit safely on the high seas”, affirms the Russian authority.

The project is to create a group of contacts to organize the exit of wheat cargoes from Ukrainian ports. The intermediaries in the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine will be the UN and Turkey .

Lavrov will be in Ankara on June 8

“Our Turkish colleagues will take part in the work of demining the ports… And they will try to find agreements so that these operations are not an opportunity for Ukraine to regroup its forces and inflict damage on Russia”, explained Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov following the telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan on June 1. The Turkish President then conveyed this agreement between Moscow and Ankara to Volodymyr Zelensky.

In the Turkish capital, it is estimated that the main issues can be settled within two weeks, knowing that, in the meantime, on June 8, Sergei Lavrov will visit Ankara.

“Ukraine does not want to see Russian ships in the port of Odessa, while Russia refuses the arrival in this port of foreign ships likely to bring weapons to Ukraine. We must therefore agree on a resolution which grants guarantees to both parties”, explained Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu.

However, the situation will not be resolved as long as the sanctions against Russian cargo ships, which are turned away from European ports, are maintained. Indeed, if Russian wheat does not fall under the scope of international sanctions, this is not the case for the logistics and financial chains linked to the delivery of cereals on world markets, Sergei Lavrov recalled.

At issue are 37 million tonnes of production for the current season, and 50 million for the next, informs Kommersant. Turkey, Egypt , Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan are the main importers of Russian wheat.

According to the daily, the hope of a positive outcome to this initiative is reinforced by the fact that Washington has approved Rebeca Grynspan's move to Russia, then to Washington. “We hope this will give a boost to companies that are currently refraining from delivering Russian grain and fertilizers,” said the United States' United States representative to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield.

On May 31, the President of the European Council, Charles Michel , also declared that the European Union and the United Nations were working to open other routes for the export of Ukrainian wheat, in particular through the territory of Belarus and of the Baltic countries.

Komersant article
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5381821?from=main

12 is the magic number. It always was, and always will be.

Why don't you call a specialist in the scientific study of human behavior?

What if I agree with you on principle, but disagree that I do it 'a lot', that in fact, the number of times I do it is only 'a few'?

Are you suggesting there's some empirical fact about how many times constitutes 'a lot'? — Isaac

Yes, I do. Human behavior can be studied objectively. You of all people should know that.

I've edited my answer.

So how much more guilty constitutes a lack of 'good will'? — Isaac

When it is almost systematic, ie when the person almost never gets it right, and yet uses this trick a lot.

EDIT: Also when the deformation, the bias, is always negative, evidently intended to grossly disfigure and hence ridicule the other's opinion. A person in good will -- if hard of hearing or a poor English speaker -- would get things wrong often but randomly, both in a positive and negative direction. A person arguing in bad will is always slanted towards the negative.

Finally, when it's not just you, but several other posters have repeatedly complained about the bad will behavior, it lends a degree of objectivity to it.

Likewise, we'll find no dissent attached to any of your rephrasings? Everyone agreed that your rephrasings were accurate representations of the original proposition?

Is that your claim? Or are we all guilty of misrepresentation, and thus none of us posting in 'good will'? — Isaac

My claim is that some are more guilty than others, and that you in particular are a serial willful misunderstander. You do it all the time.

There was one case recently where one of my rephrasing was challenged, by no other than the thread creator @Manuel. I agreed that I was caricatural and changed my rephrasing to something we both could agree on. You can see that conversation here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/703634