This post is a personification of my theory Against Excellence.

If we look what we are, what universe is, "objects" around us — wilal47744

If I see a chair, I am happy to call it a chair and not a "chair". As a chair, it is also an object, not merely an "object". Likewise, the scientific theories which tell you all about objects like frequency, vibration, energy ("pure" or not), atoms, molecules, stuff that is hidden from our eyes, our eyes themselves, we, the universe, are not "scientific theories" but scientific theories and moreover objects.

I am looking at a chair right now. If you think reality is based on observation, well, there is nothing more certain than this chair here. It is black, with 5 wheels, and a cushion. I also observe its comfortableness. I know it exists, and nothing -- God or my lack of free will, or anything else -- is forcing me to see a chair. It is an object because all chairs are objects. Therefore I am observing an object and know with absolute certainty that there are objects in the universe.

Theism can be interpreted broadly, just as atheism or scientism can. If you had said Christianity, your argument would be stronger, since there's more content which can be used to construct a meaningful claim about how this particular religion has affected Covid.

In fact, your argument seems to suggest that atheists do not value human life, which is a surprisingly bold claim.

“The yellow dragon with red balls, which speaks japanese”. It is a very clear concept — logically, there is no contradiction. But this is contradictory, not with logic (not with itself), but with reality. — Rafaella Leon

I think this is almost correct, except that you can't produce a contradiction between the yellow dragon and reality without considering both in terms of pure logic. They can retain their qualitative (nonlogical) part, but must have also a logical part so that they can be in contradiction. Otherwise you can't say the yellow dragon isn't there. I could have it in my pokeball, just waiting to be summoned to disprove you.

I mean memory in a more radical sense. Even the capacity to be aware of an object in motion requires the eye to take in a series of images. The nervous system must not immediately discard one image as the next one arrives or there would be no impression of motion. Indeed there wouldn't even be awareness of change in position, continuous or instantaneous.

Heidegger snuggled up to the Nazis, Sartre treated young women as objects, Schopenhauer had a problem with Jews and looked down on women, Aristotle thought women were “deformed men”, Hume and Kant were racists, Nietzsche despised sick people, Rousseau abandoned his children, Wittgenstein beat his students, Mill condoned colonialism, Hegel disparaged Africans and Frege was anti-Semitic. (https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/07/17/responding-to-morally-flawed-historical-philosophers-and-philosophies/). — Brett

We tend to think of our own moral intuitions as being universal and objective. But can you prove that they aren't a product of your own culture? I am not saying that any of these things were right. I am saying that we have no guarantee that people 500 years from now won't look back at some of the things we are doing and say "Wow... I can't believe they did X".

Can we not say the same thing about philosophy?

By demanding and pursuing some perfect and excellent way of understanding the world, we really do nothing but discourage our ignorant friends from participating. In the end, truth, justice, and all of those things don't really matter if you have nobody to talk to about them. What is important is that we have fun with each other while having our discussion. In my experience, the discussion is a lot more fun when we all don't know what we are talking about and make many unfounded assertions. — Garth

I'm pointing out that you took my statement out of context in the first place. because I was talking about philosophical discussions in the first place.

The dark shadow hanging over Marxism is his stages of history analysis which is complete bunk. Ironically the "communist future" is probably the most wrong theory Marx ever wrote yet it is the only thing 99% of people know about Marx.

Yes. But please note the comment of mine you are quoting refers to experience, not understanding. Understanding is an experience of our thoughts about reality. Not an experience of reality itself. Thus, understanding is 2nd hand experience. — Hippyhead

So can you explain how people who are hanging out together talking about philosophy can relate their experiences to each other directly without recourse to "2nd hand experience"? Because it seems your notion of 2nd hand experience is a little unclear.

I think about the issue in a similar way. Identity is sacrificed in the pursuit of truth. — five G

You're twisting my words to say the opposite of what I wrote.

to be rational is to be virtuously depersonalized — five G

This is evocative of a "magic formula" which is nothing but a vain belief that it is possible to search after the truth in a way that protects you from ever being wrong.But if you feel you've come upon the proper attitude, it only leads you to overconfidence. You come to believe you understand everything because, in truth, you are refusing to make assertions or formulate ideas out of a fear which you won't acknowledge.

The opposite is true. One must acknowledge ones own personal interest. To be rational is to believe in what you are arguing for and to be emotionally invested in the world. Only then does it become possible to have your opinions challenged and learn something. But in order to actualize this possibility, it is further necessary to distinguish between your own argument and what you believe is true based upon that argument. It is necessary to distinguish between the goal of the social movement and the social movement itself. And so on.

Because what Hippyhead said it self-contradictory.

the very path of logotherapeutic healing provides each patient with unmistakable evidence of the objectivity of the meaning of his life. The meaning of life simply exists: it is just a matter of finding it. — Rafaella Leon

(1) You are conflating the essence (meaning of life) with the example of it. Even if the essence is not cultural it may very well be that every example of it is cultural.

(2) You are dividing a person's thinking into two kinds, "culturally mediated" and "culturally unmediated". But it is possible that the latter category is also culturally mediated and the person simply doesn't recognize that fact. Consider, for example Vygotsky's research on the development of inner speech in children, or all of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Through the development of understanding, the essence eventually is moved into the subject. The case of objectively seeing the world without cultural influence is simply a lack of understanding on the part of the subject.

Yes but it implies that thinking about the world is not "diluted 2nd hand experience of reality over the real thing"

Please refer to Aristotle's Physics, Book 4 part 10.

Aristotle defines time as the measure of motion. I think this is a perfect definition. It is something we imagine to help us understand motion.

Now to mix in my own opinion: We cannot have any awareness of time without memory, because memory gives us awareness of motion, which allows us to describe that motion with the construct we call "time".

By demanding and pursuing some perfect and excellent way of understanding the world we are shifting our focus away from reality itself to our thoughts about reality. That is, we are choosing a diluted 2nd hand experience of reality over the real thing. — Hippyhead

Our understanding of the world is only thoughts. There are no forces or atoms or whatever in the world. All of those are simply what we think about the world. Reality itself is a mental construct.

I think we largely know what to do. Only a few details are wanting. The problem is convincing the masses to go along with the solution. Look at the pandemic response. It exemplifies this perfectly.

How do we feel when we see wealthy and privileged people who ignore travel restrictions because the are accustomed to the rules not applying to them? Not all of these people are on the Right wing. There are many people who would watch the world burn if it would advance their careers in every place and every walk of life. There's no ideology which exempts you from also needing to consciously choose to be a good person.

Now I'll address the other side of the coin. I think it's even impossible to discuss the issue of disaster preparedness in an honest way without addressing the issue of Right-Wing recalcitrance. These are the people who are hardest to convince. The weak point of the right wing is the poor, white male. All efforts by liberals should focus on appealing to these voters. But most of us won't accept that because we are committed to thinking which is heavy with themes of appreciating other cultures, intersectionality, and the like. We must be honest with ourselves and realize that such thinking is useless and serves no purpose in staving off the impending crisis.

You think its ok to verbally abuse others you disagree with, but racism is a big, "No-No"? Whats the fucking difference? — Harry Hindu

Dude I've been advocating for civil discourse for years. Generally what happens is people call me names up until the point I demonstrate them wrong and reveal their hypocrisy. Then they stop responding to me.

With regard to the paradox of tolerance specifically, here is what Karl Popper said:

Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. — Karl Popper

Is there a difference between this and the way it is usually interpreted? Of course. Because reason isn't used at all. People go straight to insults. Then they say "Gee whiz! It's so hard to convince conservatives of anything..."

As to that, I think there are specific techniques people need to learn in order to have the skill to revise their position during a discussion. And if they haven't entered the discussion with the possibility of revising their position, they are essentially engaging in verbal combat.

I say this because the unwillingness to revise means that the person and the opinion are lacking an important separation. If I can truly say that I have an opinion, I can also accept it as an opinion -- meaning it is fallible and therefore subject to change. I can get rid of it, perhaps feeling some emotion in the process, but because it is something I have I will still be myself afterwards. But when people are so attached to their opinions, having those opinions challenged becomes a loss of identity. That is when the line between ad hominem and arguing the point disappears.

But this attitude toward the world that treats opinions as being inseparable from identity is not an unsophisticated one. It is common to point out that a person's opinion is invalid not because of its internal consistency or truth value but because it is sexist, racist, etc. If you really scrutinize such a rebuttal, it actually amounts to an ad hominem and thus it wouldn't, by itself, show a flaw in the opinion. It takes a sophisticated worldview in which truth is generated or discovered by proper methodology in order to reframe the accusation of racism, sexism, etc. into a implicit critique of a truth-finding method. In this use of the term, it is further recognized that it is an uncovering of implicit premises, so even the accuser is not attacking their interlocutor so much as helping them to realize a flaw in their thinking.

Unfortunately, people online don't tend to be so well educated or aware of this distinction. Instead they view themselves factionally. These terms (racist, sexist, supporter of X) become "purity tests" which automatically identify a person as being part of a group whose presence in the discussion is unwanted. Thus, bullying and insults are used to try to shut others up. The irony, however, is that the presence of diverse opinions is necessary for a discussion. To this, I can only comment that racism, sexism, etc. have a latent or subconscious element, meaning nobody can truly say they are not a racist, sexist, etc. Therefore everyone should be aware of the hypocrisy involved in quickly applying these labels to others only to insult them.

Returning to the notion of being willing to revise your own opinions, the crucial element is having some personal rules or standards through which you become able to recognize when your position is seriously compromised. This is because there is no judge in an online debate. We are each responsible for applying the rules to ourselves. Even when an argument is totally disproved, the person who made that argument is not automatically convinced -- nor should they be. But if they are genuinely searching for the truth, they should be mature enough to write "Ok. I guess my argument doesn't work."

Causality as envisioned in this way is nonunique. I'm not saying you're wrong but that your point doesn't have anything to do with mine.

Just because something is set in motion by one cause doesn't also imply that it cannot be prevented, mitigated, or exacerbated by another.

I also think people without actual avatar images shouldn't be allowed to post :razz:

It won't let me... https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9919/against-excellence

Libertarianism is predicated on the use of lawsuits to settle disputes between individuals. Thus in order to make the system effective it must have a relatively equal wealth distribution. If it does not do this, it must resort to brutal authoritarianism to enforce property rights. Thus there is no such thing as a society that is both maximal liberty and maximal hierarchy (which I suppose you meant as economic hierarchy).

Your ideas are good ones, which is precisely why we shouldn't implement them. Refer to my post Against Excellence for the reasons.

You must consider your use of the word knowledge in the thought experiment you wrote. If you know something, by definition it can't be changed. Thus, if there is something the fortune teller can do to change that event, he cannot also assert that he knows it will happen. Alternatively, his knowledge is conditional on his inaction, or action in the usual manner.

Republicans aren't a political party anymore. They're just a faction intent on destroying the country.

Trump represents a moving of the goalposts. The real legacy of Trump will be Republicans doing antics like they did in this election in every single election and setting the stage for the next set of Republican leaders to push the envelope even farther.

I am starting to unironically think that the final stage of capitalism will be a global fascism in which 99% of the population will die. It is, at least, a way to statistically achieve superabundance: just kill all the poor and undesirable folks.

BLM, BLM-supporters, Environment activists, Senate Invaders

Same shite kind of people. Persons that due to too much or too little money in their families growing up focuses energy on other stuff than their daytime 9-5 work. — Ansiktsburk

So I suppose you support a socialist economic model with a jobs guarantee?

I think there is a flaw in the argument that only the harm to others matters. It is a bare assertion. If I harm myself or if another harms me, I am harmed in either case. What distinguishes them so that one is immoral and the other is permissible?

Note we aren't talking about formulating laws for regulating our society but speaking about ethical principles.

I guess that Antifa also tricked Trump into giving speeches to those same protesters inciting them to march on the Capitol building.

Source

The world is falling apart because of Global Warming. But yes, it's all Trump's fault.

What is the "this" about which you speak?

Amazing to think that the left being full of people calling cops pigs might make some cops unhappy with the left.

Support for Trump and his populism must be sky-high among police. I'm not saying this sarcastically. Just look at exit polling data from the Georgia run-off. 70% of white males vote R, 96% of black women vote D.

Here's exactly what I mean about leftist strategy: https://youtu.be/LN1LmXpQQQs?t=1518

I agree with Krystal Ball's strategic suggestion although I don't agree that this is populism per se.

What's the progression of the Trump-fueled populism from here? My guess is the next step is assassinations. They definitely can't allow a blue senate.

How should a leftist who is genuinely interested in strengthening the position of left politics in America respond to this crisis?

It seems that there is tension between the corporate, conservative right on one hand and the extreme populist right on the other hand. What a leftist can do to help is to accentuate the differences between these two groups in order to force them into conflict with each other. It would be truly wonderful if these two groups can be brought to destroy each other. To do this requires making some common cause with one or the other group.

For that reason, it is the absolute worst strategy to attack and insult the right wing generally. By posing yourself as a threat to both of them, you push them toward solidarity. That is why it is very important to be civil and to not call names in the course of your dealings, as a leftist, with right wing people.

Many more people will die from Ohio's new stand your ground because a black person walking up to a white person is inherently threatening.

I don't even know what NOS stands for.

So this Baden guy is actually an admin on this site and all he does is insult people who have different views than him? Starting to wonder if I've wasted my time here.

The following thought just occurred to me and although I'd do better to keep it to myself, well anyway...

Many species of animal mate through a what is essentially rape -- the male chases the female down. I think of this because I just looked out my window at the pond behind my house and saw a group of mallard ducks chasing around a female. Suppose we were able to confirm through neural scans that the female really experiences this the way a human would -- terror, pain, etc. Should we then interfere with the natural process of mating of these animals for the sake of their welfare?

For instance we could begin a program of artificial insemination of female mallard ducks so that they don't have to be raped.

I haven't had the chance to read all of this in detail so apologies in advance if I repeat something already stated or otherwise step on anyone's toes.

The reason I mentioned the (non)distinction between sameness and identity is because it is pertinent to the question of mathematical objects. If we begin by thinking of identity as

To have an identity is to be identifiable as a unique and particular individual. — Metaphysician Undercover

We can only investigate identity by looking at the qualities, properties, parts, etc. of an object in order to identify it. The essence of the object, or its form, is never what differentiates it for this purpose. Instead, it is what is accidental to it that allows it to be identified.

Plato, I think, takes identity "all the way" and so sees this process of identification as moving these accidents (which allowed identification) into the essence of the categorically more specific object that is identified. For instance, I see a person, then by perceiving certain accidents of that person (beard, tall, male, etc.) I realize the person is my father. What was accidental to the person (and to fathers in general) is actually essential to the individual that is my father. But if we admit an essence that is my father, he loses his individuality since some other person with the same (identical?) properties would also be my father.

Certain proofs in mathematics hinge on the dissolution of separate identities. For instance, the proofs on this page about lines tangent to a circle presuppose the existence of points with certain accidents. It is through this method that the contradiction necessary for the proof is shown. This reflexively shows that the points themselves cannot have the accidents which were assigned to them and thus the essence of the points of tangency is grasped. The proof equivalently amounts to showing that these points are the same.

Plato's mistake, it seems, is not noticing that identity only arises insofar as objects are not the same. It is an instrument of abstraction or speculation. Its persistence indicates an indefinite understanding. This implies it is never really present in complete understanding, actuality, truth, etc. Perhaps he was disturbed by the thought that his own philosophy suggested that we do not really have individuality or self-ness. It may have also threatened some of his assumptions about Ethics.

Kant also comments on this in Critique of Pure reason, Transcendental Doctrine of Method, Chapter I, Section I:

Philosophical cognition is the cognition of reason by means of conceptions; mathematical cognition is cognition by means of the construction of conceptions. The construction of a conception is the presentation à priori of the intuition which corresponds to the conception. For this purpose a non-empirical intuition is requisite, which, as an intuition, is an individual object

(my emphasis)

Kantian intuition therefore must involve this process of construction and dissolution of identity, not as sameness but as arbitrary differences which ultimately prove insubstantial for the concept.

Later, in section 4, he writes

Analytical judgements (affirmative) are therefore those in which the connection of the predicate with the subject is cogitated through identity; those in which this connection is cogitated without identity, are called synthetical judgements.

Kant seems to use Identity to mean sameness, or more specifically that to deduce two things as the same is to show that they share the same identity. This is further supported by Division I, Endnote 1. So even Kant doesn't really distinguish sameness from identity.

I have more to say but I've run out of brain juice...

Freedom of speech does not mean a freedom to occupy whatever platform you choose. You do not have the freedom to take over university spaces — Kenosha Kid

When a right-winger goes through the normal process of reserving a university space, are they "taking over university space"?

When the protest against this right-winger begins disrupting the function of the university to the point that the university is forced to rescind their invitation, are the protesters "taking over university space"?

Seems your definition of terms changes based on who they are applied to.

Good, so you understand that you are not protected in defacing property you don't own — Kenosha Kid

Such as Antifa tearing down statues, confederate flags, and the like.

And presumably you're not going to suggest that fascists should be free to engage in violent acts but Antifa not free to defend themselves. — Kenosha Kid

When an Antifa identifying person punches a right-wing politician and later the police beat up some Antifa protesters, is this self-defense?