Impossible.

Yeah, it's one of those things that are so simple and elegant on paper, but the reality of undertaking the task is much much harder. I say this because of my Stoic attitude, which actually seems closer to Cynicism as of late.

I have a hard time being compassionate due to feelings of sadness and such...

On the other hand, it seems like the particularistic aspect of addressing this problem has been easier to appeal to.

Anyone think science is a particularistic or methodist approach to the problem of the criterion?

God is illogical. — TheMadFool

No, God is a solipsist.

We can employ a strong argument in favor of logic which depends on its predictions coming true in every field of knowledge we know of since we even began thinking. — TheMadFool

Oh, well that's a monumental task at which Russell and the positivists have tried approaching. The positivists tried to tackle the problem through devising a method without addressing the particular, I think. You have to address both at the same time to not fail. Not sure. If you address the issue with logic alone you fail to address how we can pick out particulars, I think.

Wondering what others think about this...

Edit: You can see the culmination of the failure the positivists had, in the verification principle, in my opinion.

Yes, the unsayable and all that. Aggravates the condition so to speak, hehe. :sweat:

At times it almost seems self defeating.

Of course, the problem loops back and asks how one determines the truth of LOGIC itself? The answer is LOGIC is self-proving mechanism. — TheMadFool

Not sure about that last part, but I like where you're taking this. :smile:

It was just me asserting that what they say in those links, I assume as a given being an agnostic and subscribing to quietism.

Anyone?

Should the title read, Appearance vs Reality vs The World?

Thanks for clarifying that!

What's the question? I'm easily confused.

Thanks.

Yeah, it may be because I've always assumed the Platonic or neo-Platonic stance on the existence of God or conceptual schematic for God's existence.

Thanks anyways.

That's why I claim that W's approach is basically apophatic. — Wayfarer

Yes, though I've wondered if his attitude changed with the Investigations. These questions about the status of God and such seem to be left out from the majority of his philosophy. I think the closest you can get to him addressing these issues are in his On Certainty.

Thanks for the articles, just browsed them... I can't say they present anything of substance, though that's simply a given and something that the reader has to do is a certain suspension of disbelief. It seems the only attitude that can be served by those sentiments are of an agnostic one or metaphysical quietude.

I'm not sure, but the above idea of 'God' is closest in form, IMO, to Spinoza's conception of a pantheistic being. Is that correct or am I wrong about this?

@InternetStranger, not sure if you have any questions; but, I'm still interested in entertaining this topic if you wish.

@Wayfarer, thanks for the Wittgenstein quotes. I think they illustrate my affinity of treating God, as the unsayable and ineffable according to the Tractatus. If God is everything that is both the case and not the case, then we are unable to talk about those issues, IMO.

So, @Srap Tasmaner, are you any more knowledgeable about the whole part we've already covered?

Kinda worried that we'll never complete this group reading, :sweat:

That I don't know. — csalisbury

OK, thanks.

Most were paranoid about them. Some would deal with them through a particular kind of obsequiousness (this is describing stuff on the psychiatrist's terms) others with hostility, others with a kind of blank indifference. — csalisbury

This is interesting. Because I've realized that schizophrenia has to be addressed at an early age to deter a person from becoming convinced about the internal chatter/reality/distorted dreamworld they generate.

We're most of these people of an early onset in their diagnosis and if not we're the older types more prone to not wanting to adhere to the protocol of treating their diagnosis and thus were more hostile towards the people trying to help them?

Yes; but, I guess schizophrenia is the logical conclusion of the highest form of a failure to adapt. It's just a placeholder name I referenced.

Just out of curiosity. We're these schizophrenics against or grudging towards these high 'priests' as they call the psychiatrists there? Schizophrenia is essentially a issue of a 'failure to adapt' to one's settings or even one's diagnosis, and in many cases schizophrenics rebel against the settings, themselves, and the people who they resent being called as schizophrenics.

In terms of schizophrenic voices - I just mean the voices seem more like a drama being played out through (or within) a person than a hallucination appearing (resounding?) to a stable subject. — csalisbury

I don't understand. What do you mean by this?

People as old as I am are well advised not to buy green bananas. Respond soon, or I might not be here. — Bitter Crank

Just put them in the sunshine. The sun works miracles on green bananas.

I'm pessimistic (about climate change, global warming, rising ocean levels, petroleum depletion, CO2 reduction, etc.) because it is too late by about 40 years to make the critical changes needed, and too much time (50 years, roughly) are required to find, perfect, and implement large technological changes. In other words, the horses are out of the barn and gone. — Bitter Crank

I'm not sure about that. We have projections of climate change being manageable up to a certain degree, and we haven't reached that point yet.

It's never too late to take action on climate change. Besides the green economy is booming, and will continue to boom as long as there's some desire or need to address these issues. Most people like 'green' and I don't see how the economics of the 'green economy' can be denied.

I don't see how pessimism has any utility or function here. It's a bad concept to introduce to the discussion and only stifles improvement.

Here's a symbolic example: President Carter installed solar panels on the roof of the White House in 1976. in 1980 President Reagan had them removed -- not because they were ruining the roof, but because he rejected the whole ecological movement. Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, accomplished nothing, and Obama didn't accomplish significant significant reductions, either -- though he at least signed the Paris climate change agreement, which Trump then rejected. — Bitter Crank

I'm well aware of peanut farmer, nuclear submarine officer Carter, who's attempts to address climate change, have been vilified and shitted on by the right to no end. He was a great president, in many regards. But, it's important to note that the left is also to blame for the current circumstances. Nuclear is not all evil. It's one of the few energy sources that is not classified as a renewable; but, has enormous potential to solve these problems had it not been vilified and regulated by the left out of existence.

The 1970 decade was the last time we could have begun earnestly responding to climate change, but we didn't. Four more decades (1980 - present) pushed CO2 levels, global heating, and all that close to the top. It is now running over the top. — Bitter Crank

That's not true. We haven't yet reached a tipping point as far as I'm aware.

IF China, the US, Europe, India, et al ALL committed to radical CO2 reduction today, it would still take at least 50 years to bring about the process. — Bitter Crank

I'm not sure if that's the right way to view the issue. Economic forces are making solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable sources as more viable and cost effective than the current fossil fuel lineup. So, yeah, it's the economy "stupid".

Carbon sequestration? Gigantic solar farms and windmills everywhere? Everybody on mass transit? Abandoning the private automobile, freeways, air travel and airports? Cease petroleum pumping, plastic production, and use? Abandon consumerism everywhere? Empty the suburbs? Gut the world economy? — Bitter Crank

False dilemma.

One might as well plan on the second coming of Christ to happen this afternoon. — Bitter Crank

Non sequitur.

A case in point to your sentiment is the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine, or the logical extreme of your point at least.

If we lived in a perfect world and everyone we're as rational as I am, we would all get along fine and dandy. But, it's not a perfect world.

My point in the whole topic was to illustrate that solipsism can serve by extension as an argument against the evil demon or Cartesian skepticism. The process of doubting itself presupposes knowledge.

In light of this, if one can doubt, then they are most certainly not a solipsist, and hence the evil demon aint that evil, by extension.

It would be themselves if the universe was solipsistic so no. If the universe was not solipsistic, then it would be better characterized as an angel of enlightenment. — VagabondSpectre

So, again, the solipsist cannot logically doubt. I rest my case.

But, maybe they accidentally bonk their head on itself one day and get confused, and begin doubting in error — VagabondSpectre

What if instead of bonking their heads they, the solipsist, encountered Descartes evil demon, which would prod the person to doubt. Would it be such an "evil demon" anymore?

Therefore a true/authentic solipsist cannot doubt?

But, surely that's illogical.

Can a solipsist doubt their beliefs? Yes. — VagabondSpectre

But, a solipsist's world is one full of absolute certainty, so how can doubt arise in such a world?

As Keynes said, "In the long run we're all dead."

All of those changes won't happen overnight. There will be time to adapt. It's not as doom and gloomy as you say it is. The changes will be slow and gradual. So, why get so emotional over it anyway, BitterCrank? Even I won't see the sum total of net negatives from this situation. I'm not trying to be cynical here; but, as much as it sucks saying this given the shitty situation us new guys and gals are inheriting from your generation, it's not your problem.

Now, I'm not sure what I meant. :smile:

China is actually taking steps to mitigate these issues on a national level. Just track the progress they're making on renewables. They're also the main exporter of cheap solar panels combined with heavy subsidizes that are hard to beat economically.

On the other hand we have people like Elon Musk on the Western frontier in an attempt to move to Mars and reshape the energy sector single handedly. Hats off to him.

Sure, why not?

Shameless bump.

I wanted to post a similar topic but found this one more than good enough to address these issues.

One perspective that others haven't taken into consideration is the fact that China has integrated a robust economy into its central management system. They seemed to have been able to solve the management problem (effective allocation of resources) that the Soviets faced under a central command economy. Some people call this a hybrid economy, but I digress.

What I see happening is that China is embracing technology unlike any other nation from a central command. Sure, surveillance is one of the prime motivators for doing this; but, for reasons mentioned already I can somewhat understand. I see the future of China as a technocracy subverted to the demands of the communist party.

Does anyone have legitimate fears of China becoming jingoistic? I don't really have anything empirical to support such a notion. I can't help but feel that having China as a future superpower eclipsing America as a win-win situation for the world? Does anyone think otherwise, and why?

I haven't forgotten about this reading group.

I'm going to scour and compile a summary based of what we've covered thus far. Going to take a while for me to do that, so stay tuned.

Thanks.

So, when are you becoming a mod, @Agustino?

anti-semitic jokes — Baden

Hmm, you guys must do an excellent job on covering that issue because that would be inconsistent with my mental picture of Buxte as he had a low view of Palestinians from a topic in the shoutbox that I followed and in my view started this whole issue. If true then it was a typical case of stopping a troll from getting his fix.

In other words, I agree with the decision given the above.