Depends:

R&B, Ray Charles for me.

There is very little direct info on Socrates. it is speculation mostly based on what Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes wrote about him, all highly disputable.

He was apparently a member of a tribal class in Athens (10 tribes) and since it was a tribal society his position n society was more important than his work. He couldn't survive Athens Democracy because several of his prize students were among the Thirty Tyrants, and his love Alcibiades betrayed Athens to Sparta. The city didn't appreciate these results of his teaching, or lack of teaching as he puts it in the Apology.

Welcome to TPF.

She is the shit.

I like what Antonio Damasio said:

Consciousness, much like our feelings, is based on a representation of the body and how it changes when reacting to certain stimuli. Self-image would be unthinkable without this representation. I think humans have developed a self-image mainly to establish a homeostatic organism. The brain constantly needs up-to-date information on the body's state to regulate all the processes that keep it alive. This is the only way an organism can survive in an ever changing environment. Emotions alone—without conscious feelings—would not be enough. Adults would be as helpless as babies if they suddenly lost their self-image.

The brain is part of the organism as are the heart, the lungs, ....treating parts as the whole is a fallacy.

This and so many other theories proposed share the assumption that there IS a morally correct way to behave. I find this problematic.

I submit that morals are not discovered, they are created. They are a consequence of the way we share the experience of social life. All well and good, but we don't, at least in the so called civilised world, belong to a single social group. What is the right thing to do if the demands of your workmates contridict those of your local community? What if legal obligations (which routinely claim to be a manifestation of absolute morality) would involve a betrayal of family?

Is it possible that we fail to grasp morality because we are grasping at air?

Working backwards. I don't think we are grasping at air. If morals are created as a consequence of the "way we share experience of social life" and man is a social creature then perhaps moral theory intersects with social theory at critical points....such as a society without moral practices cannot exist, that all societies require certain minimal normative moral standards (stated or unstated) in order to function.

It is difficult to understand how a society that condones gratuitous murder, thievery or lying could function as a society. If so certain moral prohibitions would form a kind of species trait for humans. Problematic issues such as abortion are socially contested because certain basic rights are being contested, namely the right of the fetus for life vs the autonomy of a women over her body.

So while I think that a moral choice must weight reason with emotion, I think there are certain values that form who we are as humans, that weigh one decision over the other. It is our decision, our desire to be in concert with ourselves that determines the choice we make and that choice may not be at all that easy or simple.

Off in a bit to play poker :grin:

Moral police" is a fascinating phrase. Maybe I've just read too much Orwell, but doesn't it seem rather ominous, as though such a group would be (or is) ironically, profoundly immoral?

As such, I accept that having morality enforced by an external source is an anathema. However, this doesn't mean that my personal emotional attitude is morally right either.

For example, the hatred I feel for the **** who stole my girlfriend is, even to me, clearly not morally right. How are we to figure out which emotions are morally right except through the application of reason?

I used the term "moral police" because I was afraid the @ArguingWAristotleTiff would spit-up if I said it was due to american Republican's fetish with what goes on in the bedroom.

So is your screen name "Shatter" the result of the hatred you feel towards the one who stole your girl? Did it Shatter you?

I agree with you that the application of reason is needed for morals to make sense. The rah-boo ethics of emotovist are non-cognitive to extent of dumbness and the dry ethics of Kant leaves out the emotional force needed for a pragmatic ethics. I think that without conceptualization there can be no desire, and without desire there can be no action...perhaps ethics involves getting the mix right?

an overarching account or interpretation of events and circumstances that provides a pattern or structure for people’s beliefs and gives meaning to their experiences.

Do you agree or disagree that identity is tangled with worldview?

I don't think there is a "worldview", "an overarching account", rather there are many narratives that intersect, combine, diminish, accentuate, are modern, postmodern, anachronisms... all part of our language game.

Thus the society of the future falls less within the province of a Newtonian anthropology (such as structuralism or systems theory) than a pragmatics of language particles. There are many different language games a heterogeneity of elements. They only give rise to institutions in patches-local determinism.

JF Lyotard

That said we can't speak without reference to meta narratives because of the complexities of our modern ecology. The whole techo/historic complex is behind very simple statements such as "turn on the light" and we are equally aware and unaware of the the various infrastructures behind such a simple statement.

The fragmentation of the overarching meta narrative, has lead us to the fragmentation of the autonomous self, into our schizoid personalities. The neutrality of the ego as witness and role player who plays multiple parts but without full absorption into any of its roles. This is the difference between parody of an officially designated style, and pastiche where there are many styles and none of them are official.

"It is a mark of an educated mind to entertain the ideas of others, without taking them on for you own."

Maybe, I think Plato would say this is the way of a Sophist. Their relationship must have turned rocky.

The sex worker idea is splendid but I doubt it could fly here in US... Craigslist shut down its personals and the Feds seized Backpage.com web sites last week. .

The new law will force US sex worker back on to the street in most locales, or back to pimps for protection since they can no longer anonymously screen potential customers. This law which basically says that a web site is responsible for third part postings may lead to much more intrusive censoring by the moral police.

Maybe you can provide a reference.

I know in the "Apology", Plato reports Socrates saying:

"At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know" 22d

The law of non-contradiction (LNC) is defined as the impossibility of a proposition being both true and false in the same respect and at the same time.

Perhaps time in the definition is an attempt to apply a formal law to our empirical experience of the world. The LNC is a formal rule, but in the empirical world the things we perceive are continually changing, becoming. By saying "in the same respect and at the same time", I think we idealizing the empirical, trying to treat it as if it could stand still.

Languages evolve, even bird songs evolve according to a study of more than 30 years of Savannah sparrows recordings, the birds are singing distinctly different songs today than their ancestors did 30 years ago - changes passed along generation to generation, according to a 2013 study by University of Guelph researchers.

Bird's that don't learn their songs from their parents don't find mates.

How we know what we know must precede what we know, even if what we know provides the conditions for how we know.

How we know what we know is epistemic (the starting point as Descartes showed), it must precede (in time) what we know, our ontology, but once we have decided on our ontological stance, then we can understand how it formed the conditions of our epistemology.

Ontologically, either you're a realist or an anti-realist. Either you accept facts are real independently of the "human mind" (realist), i.e. objective, or you accept that reality is only subjective (anti-realist)

What is "real", and is "reality" which must be for us, the same as the "real".

How we know what we know must precede what we know, even if what we know provides the conditions for how we know.

No?

Yes, he is very much a mixed bag but others are coming out to question him such as Sam Harris. I have not watched their debate yet, not really interested in much either has to say, except for the dramatics, but people are interested ,,,each of their conversation racked up over 300K views.

And yes, but is it really philosophy? It seems like they are grappling with ideas in the conversations I have listened to even though I disagree with them on points like Peterson's blanket criticism of Marxism or Harris's view on determinism.

I think desire (except erotic) is based on a lack and what we desire has to be some combination of reason and pleasure which is perhaps a description of the will. Some hold that our desire is not ours but the desire of others, that what we ultimately want is recognition, and that want is structured by the desires of others.

I am not so sure Philosophy is sunk. If someone like Jordan Peterson, regardless of what you think of him, can sprout out of obscurity into a major cultural figure over a very short period, it suggests to me that people are interested if they can understand what is being said and if what is being said could make a difference in their lives.

Who need a hero? (Hero)
You need a hero, look in the mirror, there go your hero
Who on the front lines at ground zero? (Hero)

At the most partial level, it is the phenomena I perceive. Less partially, it is the phenomena which we perceive—and the inclusivity of this “we” will indicate the degree of impartiality relative the the most partial perspective of the “I” when solely addressed. For example, this "we" could be one and one’s buddy, one’s group(s), one’s total species, all mammals, etc. Lastly, that which is equally applicable to all sentience is most impartial relative to any particular sentience.

Replace “impartiality” with “objectivity”—as can be quite validly done—and you can then address objective phenomena … as long as this objectivity is not addressed in terms of an absolute but, instead, in terms of being relative to the inclusiveness of all sentient beings addressed.

I think that there has to be some sort of kind of progression, a semiotic which I don't think is caught in the conception of a spectrum. We all start with the phenomenal... we learn a language which combines phenomenal sounds with mental meanings and enables our ability to communicate of our ideas with others, this is the basis for developing ideals which enable us to immediate categorize the phenomenal as well as enabling our scientific determination of the underling reasons why the phenomenal (physical or mental) appears as it does.

. Question: Kant famously denied knowledge to make room for faith. It's clear to me he denied scientific knowledge (of speculative matters) to make room for faith. I argue he did not in any way deny or intend to deny practical knowledge with respect to faith; indeed, he needed it to ground faith. Yes?

Kant denied the rationalistic arguments for the existence of God, he did not deny God. He denied the possibility of religious knowledge in order to safeguard faith, "in order to make room for faith". He did not challenge the intelligibility of religious doctrine, just that their truth or falsity could be known.

Faith for Kant is justified consent which is rooted the needs of practical life where faith binds us to morality through our free acts of the will. His linking of morality/religion gives (practical) knowledge a distinctively intersubjective status, where we legislate for all members of the 'Kingdom of Ends"

But the information is not within the scope of the investigation if it happened while Trump was a private citizen.

Muller's office apparently came up with information during its investigation that as you state does not relate to his investigation but since he is required by law to present any suspected crime to the appropriate authorities, his office recommended it the FBI's NY office. My understanding is that the NY Office is investigating Cohen for bank, and election fraud.

The warrants were handled by the office of US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, a recent Trump appointee. Berman is also the former law partner of Rudolph Giuliani, one of Trump's early supporters and advisers. The judge thought that sufficient probable cause exists or he would not have issued the warrants.

"The FBI and Justice Department use lawyers and investigators walled off from the primary investigation to sift through the documents to prepare a "privilege log" for later submission to the court. At least in theory these "taint" teams remove any legitimately privileged items from examination by the primary investigators putting the case together. Or at least that is how it is supposed to work, though some of us who are criminal defense lawyers may be skeptical." CNN

If attorney/client conspired to break the law, attorney client privilege does not hold. Also if the FBI and Justice Department don't handle the information they seized impartially they are subject to sanction and the case being dismissed.

The following is from my 1805 edition of Samuel Johnson's "Dictionary of the English Language"

1) To bring into being--Gianville
2) To convert money into land.

So then in the 2nd sense, as in 'to realize an estate'.

Trump's personal attorney Cohen, office, hotel room and his home were raided by the FBI today. The US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York executed a series of search warrants and seized the privileged communications.

Trump called it an " attack on our country"

A judge authorized the Federal Warrants, which means that even if Trump axes Muller, the NY State Federal District Attorney can keep the action rolling in courts at Trump. Axing Muller will infuriate a lot of people.

Michael Cohen is also the Deputy National Finance Chairperson of the RNC.

:up:

K, conventional agreement about what is the case determines what is the case because others can verify what is the case for themselves and agree with me or not... how's that? It is a synthetic, not a deductive claim.

But isn't this how we claim objective validity, the ability of another to verify my judgement, to replicate my results?

See your Moondog & Elington and raise you Two Cellos!


Intense that!

I raise you

I can and on occasion do confirm what I sense by discussing it with others who either agree or disagree, and typically we come to some sort of agreement. How do you do it?

Objectivity in the sense of judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

(Critique B621)

Is there any distinction in your thinking in your first sentence between "real" and reality? I think we did admit a distinction above - I could be mistaken. If a tree-in-itself-as-it-is-in-itself, ding an sich selbst, is the reality, is "reality" interchangeable with "real"?

(What we see cannot be the tree itself - we see different trees - my image differs from your image!) I agree "the phenomenal is real" - just not reality, or at least not the reality of the tree. Maybe the reality of the perception of the tree. We just have to be careful about exactly what we're affirming. You've left out the steps between perceiving and learning - maybe that doesn't matter.

One reason I have gone to the phenomenal is its objective certainty. While we may be certainly wrong in what we perceive, we can't un-sense it, it may not be but it certainly can't be un-sensed. Descartes's point of certainty may be absolute but leaves us in a subjective waste land. The phenomenal , unlike the Cogito, can be shared. Did you see that cherry tree, yes it is beautiful I especially like it white blossoms against the stark gray background of early spring. Of course I could be feverish, delusional or tripping, but you can tell me that I am mistaken, and together we can work it out. Unlike the solipsistic nightmare of Descartes's certainty, shared phenomenally is objectively certain real. The certainty of the phenomenal is capable of being shared, corrected and enhanced.

I think an epistemological foundation is necessary and must be ascertained on an intersubjective level. If we believe Kant we can't know the "in itself" the objective, instead we determine the transcendental presumptions that are needed to account for our experience of the world . It is not really an ontology as such and I concur however I think the phenomenal realism I am thinking about has a transcendental character which based on its concurrence with others. Therefore it is both immanent (in the world) and transcendent (shared with others) at the same time in a shared world.

What we come to is "spirit as a social construction." Admitted and agreed: there certainly seems to be, e.g., national spirit. But this cannot be spirit in itself, can it? You've given an example, not the thing itself. If I look at your description, spirit seems to be the derived, the abstracted, the generalized, gelled into a being. If that's the case, then we have this, that, and the other thing called the spirit of this, that, and the other thing, but we have lost spirit itself, except as an entirely abstract collective term with no content in itself. The questions of the being and existence of spirit simply evaporate.

Spirit in itself is a dynamic whole, the affirmation all we have derived, learnt, remembered, shared. Its dynamism works in our life in concert with others...this is its affirmative effect I think. Spirit's construction starts on day 1 and never ends until we end. I don't think that Spirit, as a 'thing' is possible to demonstrate because it is constantly changing, only partial view points are possible.

It is only in and through our relationship with others that fragments of our spirit can be shared, imparted, and understood by us and others. Our relationship with others is cemented in language, where we can phenomenally share meanings.

Humans compare in many ways. For example, some people are more talented, fit, attractive, intelligent, wealthy, motivated etc. Other people have none of these traits. The question is: Are some people better than others?

As I read it, your question seems to move from what is the case to what ought to be the case.

Let's suppose that spirit (dreams, awareness, intentionality, etc. - the content of these things) is just phenomenon. Then isn't spirit real? Reality blushes at this, and the runs away from it. What am I to make of it?

Time for you to write a bit more on what spirit is, perhaps how it relates to life itself. I assume that for you, no life, no spirit - yes?

Spirit is a virtually real construction,

I suggest that the phenomenal is real and that the reductions or abstractions we derived from the manifest are virtually ideal. What we have learned determines how these ideals effect our lives. The societal discourses we learn, share and contribute to enable us to have common values and explain a shared world. The effect is that of a coherent whole, whose qualities form the definitive or typical elements in the character of a person, nation, or group or in the thought and attitudes of a particular period...this what is meant by spirit as a social construction in my opinion.

I defer to your interpretation, I have not read BoR in a long time and I have never studied it in detail.

:up:

Yes, I think so. The rider of the White Horse in Book of Revelations is Christ according to

"Irenaeus, an influential Christian theologian of the 2nd century, was among the first to interpret this Horseman as Christ himself, his white horse representing the successful spread of the gospel." Wikipedia.

The myth of St. George seems to fit pretty well into this description.