That's kind of the point I made.

Sensible ones (for the time they were writing in) also include Locke, Smith, Mill, Hume, Russell, Kant, Dewey and many others. Not utopians.

But then those you mention are problematic in many ways.

You are correct, and one tries to be accommodating to those who are next to Russia, or close to it. Totally understandable position. We all think we are on the right track, of course, but we could be wrong in our thinking or when looking at evidence, or the weight we give to one thing over another, etc.



lol I would be crazy to read everything here, I've skipped often 10-15 pages or more. When I have participated, I know of one poster, but maybe there is another one or few. They're not common.

I'm only slightly surprised because I expect a little more from this forum, especially after 355 pages — Xtrix

Me too.

Then again, if you look at the tradition in philosophy, you find every kind of political persuasion and personalities, so, I suppose we shouldn't be mildly surprised.

What’s more striking is that one cannot question further without either being labeled a Putin supporter or US jingoist. — Xtrix

This is very important and it seems other people have a hard time understanding this, when it should be quite simple to get. I think I've only seen one poster here supporting Russia and saying Ukraine is part of Russia, though I have not seen him post here in a while. Everybody else that I've seen, takes it as a given, that this war is a crime. I mean, it's obvious, I can't believe it has to be said all the time.

The most scary thought is that if Putin would have stopped there, he might have gotten away with it. It might have taken a decade, but the likelihood of the West accepting de facto the annexation of Crimea would have been likely. But a gambler doesn't know when to stop. He had to have that land bridge to Crimea and Novorossiya. — ssu

Yes, it was very much well on its way to that, seems to me it actually was taken as a de-facto part of Russia, but he wanted more.

Russia has a habit of having these epic fails in wars where some in their own hubris write off the whole country. They shouldn't do that. The bear can lick it's wounds and sometimes get smarter. — ssu

I think this applies to all great powers honestly. And to be clear, it's the leadership, the elite, the military, that choose to do these things, the populations very often don't even get a choice, or are fed propaganda.

True enough. Nowadays we call it reification, in that mind per se isn’t reducible to substance, therefore thinking substance is moot. — Mww

This depends on what you mean by "substance". I've been re-reading Locke again, and he raises this problem in very, very interesting ways. Actually, on one not-too-controversial interpretation, I think Locke's "substance" is similar to "things in themselves". There are differences of course, especially when primary qualities are listed as belonging to the thing in the material world.

As to the rest, he says it's "something I know not what", which we have to postulate to make sense of experience, unless one believes that objects are properties alone, which I think is unintelligible.

So on interpretation, thinking substance is possible, we just don't know how it could be so.

But do you think Descartes treated res cogitans as a principle, or an actual substance? In First Principles 1, 52 he defines substance, then in 1-53 qualifies the differences with the attributes each can have. The attribute of a thinking substance is thought, so....is he calling it out as the case, or a principle which grounds the case? — Mww

I may have not expressed myself as clearly as possible. I'm saying that he postulated res cogitans as a way to account for the things which could not be accounted for by res extensa. Yes, he did classify res cogitans as a substance, in this respect, being also a scientist, he was doing something rational, looking for a principle (in the scientific sense) to close the gap, as it were, his principle was to add another substance to the one he thought the world was made of.

He was as much a scientist and mathematician, if not more so in his time, than a philosopher, which is how we recognize him today.

I do know I am talking to a Finn, we have raised it a few times actually. That's interesting intelligence, and believable. But one thing is having such ambitions, and the other is actually doing it.

From a military perspective, Crimea went rather well for Russia. The general consensus on this war by now, is that Putin thought he would be welcomed and he was gravely mistaken.

So the rest of what you mention may well be accurate, but now we know it can't apply. Heck, even without this protracted war, after about a month, maybe two, this dream of his of negotiating with the rest as a great power seems to me to have vanished, because in reality, he can't make it happen.

We will see how this pans out. Hopefully well enough.

So now Putin is like Hitler, carrying out literal genocide and wanting to conquer, not "merely" all of Europe, but also the rest of the world?

He couldn't conquer Ukraine, and is now resorting to desperate measures. You really think he will conquer Finland and Sweden and Germany? But how could he realistically do that and to what end?

You must know now that internally in Russia he is losing popularity quite quickly and the longer this lasts, the more his popularity will drop. Not to mention all the internal dissent and all the many fleeing the country.

From that, it does not follow that all there is, is what I think (there is). It is absurd to claim there is nothing other than what I, or humans in general, can think. — Mww

Quite right.

And I happen to think that his dualism is often misunderstood. He thought he could explain the whole physical (non-mental) world in terms of mechanistic materialism, the view that the world is a giant clock.

But mechanistic materialism could not account for many aspects of the mental, including thought and the creative aspect of language use, which is why, as a scientist, he introduced a new principle, res cogitans, to attempt to account for what his mechanistic philosophy could not explain.

He was wrong in the end, but it was a sensible approach.

I had in mind Russia (the Russian state) in general rather than Putin himself, who does have most of the power.

Netanyahu is a compulsive liar, Bolsonaro too, Bush junior was pretty bad and so was Blair, not to mention whoever is in charge in North Korea.

You are right that countries will lie often. Not always, nor is agreeing with some of the things they say make you support them.

This point generalized to virtually every government in the world. They all commit crimes to differing degrees, but agreeing with them doesn't make one a "supporter" or a "hater".

Of course, all this gets magnified significantly during wartime.

The main point here, for me, regardless of how the attacks were carried out, is that this has increased military offensive, as we are seeing daily with this missile barrage. They have a right, no doubt, to fight in every part of Ukraine. I think they have to be careful in what choices they carry out. Russia still has plenty of missiles, which can and likely will be used against Ukrainians.

I wouldn't gamble on the point of the "red line", it seems pretty serious to me and obviously to many leaders, which is why it is practically the dominant topic on international affairs. I also don't think that if on some particular point, if an argument is given that happens to coincide with Russia's views, it must be "propaganda".

It's not so much that the West tells Ukraine to do whatever they want, and Ukraine must do it, it's more in line with, we are giving you weapons, so you better fight the Russians to the end, don't focus on negotiations, as Johnson said, for instance. He was almost surely following the US/NATO line.

The focus should be on de-escalation, but we don't see that happening right now. You seem to be of the persuasion that Russia can be defeated completely and kicked out of Ukraine and that's it. I really doubt that's how it's going to play out. We will see who ends up being right.

I've been a bit busy today and my brain is a bit gone. Just from skimming, agree on some points, others not so much.

Thanks for the detailed response, will get back to you tomorrow.

I currently cannot access the NYT articles, which are paywalled. You are correct that there is no link given for this claim.

As for the terrorist attack, it is defined in numerous ways, Oxford for instance defines it as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Is the bridge in Crimea used for civilian purposes in addition to military ones? Yes.

Is it a legitimate target? Sure. Was it a smart action to do this? I don't think so, look at the results of such actions. This much was predictable.

Of course, there is no doubt that Russia is committing, by far, the most terrorist attacks in Ukraine, it's not even a competition.

the US, along with almost every other country in the world, considers Crimea to be part of Ukraine, not Russia. And the phraseology, such as "pumping Ukraine full of the world’s most advanced weapons systems" (накачка украины оружием - google this phrase) is straight from Russian propaganda playbook — SophistiCat

You are right. On the other hand, it is de facto taken to be part of Russia. Obama applied the mildest of sanctions when the Russia annexed Crimea. It has important military value for Russia, given the naval base they have there.

I don't think this area will be given back. The newly annexed territories are a different matter, this was a desperate attempt to save face given the counterattack.

The quoted phrase may indeed be out of the Russian propaganda playbook, but it is no less true for being so. You think Ukraine would've lasted much without such help?

I happen to think that the longer this lasts, the more civilians will die, which is not good for Ukraine by the way.

Forgot who was asking, but here is the evidence of US/Ukraine bombing of bridge:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/10/10/ymsa-o10.html

It's not really the entirety of Russia, I'd say the autocratic Russian leadership. Of course some would blame the population at large for not ousting the leadership, I just don't think it's that easy/simple. As far as I can tell (conjecture on my part), Putin's agenda is one of domination, national pride, and it seems the end justifies the means. Then a real-life chess game. — jorndoe

I assume that when one says "Russia" or the "US" or "Ukraine", one is not referring to a land mass, much less to millions of people, with different opinions and perspectives.

The interest of a politician, or an oil baron, is not the same interest of that of a nurse, housekeeper, plumber or mechanic.

It almost always refers to the elites who are making the decisions, whether in military or private capacity, they are the ones who dictate policy. Granted, even in elite groups there can be dissent, but those aren't the ones making decisions.

You are right to bring it up, and although I have mentioned it a few times, not emphatically enough, it's an important topic.

As for Putin's agenda, sure. Similar to Erdogan or others who have some power. But he has nukes, which makes it very dangerous.

Here's me thinking that wanting a nuclear war should suffice on pain of stupidity...

Of course.

Then again changes take place a person at a time, at all levels of society. Even if the circle is very small, it's still a circle.

Correct.

Either one is in a position to directly influence the war (US, Europe, Russia) or one talks about it as a pressing issue, an issue that deserves as much attention as possible.

By doing this, one hopes that others will find what one says useful, as a way to learn more or further discuss this issue with others.

That could lead to something. Or it could fail. Best we can do is try at least.

I don't know how long we have, so that my generation could also be going out with yours.

It is frustrating to have a conversation on this topic. I genuinely do not understand at all, how condemning Russia helps in any way, to resolve this conflict.

But I could be a moral monster, for wanting this war to end sooner rather than later. And gamble that an imaginary Putin will just tuck his tail under his legs and stay home.

And believe it is morally commendable.

You said you were cautious about condemning Russia because you fear the repercussions of speaking out. — frank

I did? I don't remember saying that, but this thread is very long. If I did say so, then it was a stupid thing to say.

I will say it once more, I really don't know to what end but, what Russia is doing is criminal. Obviously.

I agree, we can leave it at that.

I find this to be distasteful. If you won't condemn Russia, your condemnation of the US is meaningless. Your condemnation of the Holocaust is meaningless. — frank

Frank, I have said I don't know, over 10 times that what Russia is doing is criminal. I don't know if you want me to recite a poem about how stupid this decision was.

But by doing this, I achieve nothing of moral value, nor does it make me feel good or righteous.

I don't know how you extrapolate to all the rest.

We'll just have to disagree here.

I said that the only moral aspect I could have a positive contribution on is what my Governments do or do not do. Even in that aspect my impact is miniscule, it's the only one I have.

If I can convince or persuade people that what NATO is doing is increasing the deaths of Ukrainians as it is - just read today's headlines - then that's the only thing I can do morality-wise, that could have an impact.

Beyond that, moral issues raised by Russian brutality is not something I can do anything about. If I let myself get carried away by these atrocities, I will only be increasing the militaristic rhetoric (and actions) that are currently going on.

I think a nuclear war is the single biggest moral issue human beings face. The question is are we willing to settle going down than that path, because we don't like our enemy?

If morality is your main concern, why not talk about Yemen? That's another super disaster, worse than Ukraine, happening right now, which we could potentially do something about.

How does the encroachment of the West in Putin's neighborhood warrant bombing civilians? I think you would say it can't warrant it. — frank

It wouldn't. Of course not.

Yet we live in the real world, in which consequences happen if a major country suffers humiliation. It does not in any way justify killing civilians, but it is to be expected regardless.

think you should spend a second looking at this through a lens of morality. — frank

The only moral aspect I can have a miniscule-sliver-of-a grain-of-sand say is in how my government reacts to this affair. I have no control over Russia. If I were Russian, then I'd be fined or jailed, but wouldn't be rooting for this war.

If I let sentiment take my judgment (not meaning this applies to you), then I will be leading Ukraine and the World, to annihilation.

And this is not the only war that's going on that is very ugly, others like Yemen or Ethiopia, for instance, are arguably worse. But few express outrage at these. Why is that? Yemen is due to Saudi Arabia, the West's partner, who sell them weapons that is leading to mass famine and widespread destruction.

I care about avoiding a nuclear war most of all, and reducing the numbers of people being killed as quickly as possible (because right now is not possible), not at some nebulous date in which Ukraine wins. I don't see that happening. It could. I wouldn't gamble on it though.

That's going to be true of any politics thread generally, including Climate Change or wealth distribution or Trump and Biden. I only hope some people reading this may learn a thing or two, and by that I mean even if it's one person, then it's better than nothing. But we can't know that.

It's a way to vent my frustrations at seeing how CNN, MSNBC the BBC and others cover this story.

But, point taken.

If you're thinking there was a better time in the past when wars weren't about expanding portfolios, I think you're wrong.

And yet there actually are other reasons that wars happen. It's ok to examine those other reasons without fear of being caught naive. — frank

Not at all, you are right. This is old indeed, well documented by, say, Smedley Butler, he painted the picture very clearly in that one.

It may not be the main motive, but it is surely a large one. The longer this goes on, the more money they get and the politicians too.

Yes, there are other reasons, namely NATO expansion, which I've mentioned several times. Now, if Putin adds crazy reasons once the war is running, OK. Hard to imagine giving good reasons for war in the 21st century. It's always about "liberation" and so on, no country is going to say "we will kill and enslave civilians."

I'm also not saying that there are legitimate Russian concerns in the Donbass, but a response of this scale is madness. Yet here we are.

It's unfortunate that Putin didn't pick a different route to protecting his neighborhood, if that's what he was doing. — frank

I agree. It was one of the most stupid decisions in history, given how its turning out.

I only add, which is no small part, that the way the West has replied has been to enflame the situation. You can see the results right now. In a rational world both sides would look for negotiations NOW, but we have escalations.

Doesn't speak to well of the species that we are at this point after so much savagery in the 20th century alone, neverminded previous history.

No, that isn't Disney. I think it's a rational move, given the dire circumstances.

I'm referring to the way the conflict is presented, as if Europe, US and NATO are "good guys" vs an evil villain. In my view, the leaders (not the people in the country, or at least not most of them by any means) are all criminals and are using this war as a means to sell weapons and make a killing, while pretending it's about saving Ukranians.

I don't like to repeat this because it is too obvious, kinda like saying "Hitler was evil", but yes, this war is a criminal act and Russia is the aggressor. But I also cannot leave out the previous provocations by the West and the repeated warnings by Russia.

I mean, if something erupted in Taiwan for instance - that being even more dangerous potentially, it shouldn't come as a total surprise, because China has been warning about this for decades. Kind of like Russia did too.

Though to be fair, I did not think Russia would invade, as you can see in my posts in the beginning of the thread, I did get that way wrong.

I hear you. Though a corrective or counterbalance is necessary, or else it merely becomes self-reinforcing dogma.

Having said that, it's extremely difficult to get our governments to act in a more cautious manner, particularly when all of them tend to twist the facts to the benefits of each respective state - which causes the population to get a Disneyfied view of the world.

Can't blame them though.

As happens in war.

Excellent post. :up:

That's kind of like saying that all these people in Moscow who are against the war and are jumping out of windows actually were depressed. Do you have proof saying otherwise?

This is the most plausible scenario we have as of this moment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfN56MgDprk

But, yes, it could be that Russia decided to harm itself by blowing the pipeline near Germany. It's not as if the US or Nato or Ukraine will say "I did it!".

However, if there is evidence pointing in the other direction, then I will have to retract my comments.

Not about what Blinken or Biden said, which would be silly to overlook in my opinion.

Or you can present another plausible account.

I don't see what other scenario is probable out of those I mentioned.

It's a matter of likelihood. I suspect we may soon get direct evidence of the event. It would make no sense for Germany to blow up a pipeline (which is close to them) that provides them crucial resources especially in winter.

Russia surely needs any money it can get, given the sanctions it has. So it has no incentive to blow up a pipeline that benefits them. The US does have an incentive to blow up the pipeline. Remember that Blinken said that it was a "tremendous opportunity" to take advantage of this situation and further weaken Russia. That's very convenient.

Add that to Biden's comments saying trust me we have a way of shutting it down, you can find it on YouTube.

Alternatively, it could be Ukraine that did so, to further pull Europe on its side in winter, with zero guarantees it will work out. It makes sense for them to do it to weaken Russia, in a sense, but they would not do something that big without the approval of Washington.

Finally, if Russia, for whatever reason, did not want to supply Germany, it could simply shut off the supply, no need to blow it up.

So there's no alternative I can think of, that is realistic, given what's at play.

What a fantastic pic. FFS with leaders like these, and crowds whipped into a frenzy... Won't repeat myself at the moment.

I must imagine that someone in background is thinking about some way to settle this. It is beyond comprehension that we are seeing a potentially lethal event and we're just like, not walking, but running, quite enthusiastically, off a cliff.

Words fail.

Yes, indeed, a classic.

Wasn't Einstein a patent clerk when he discovered the first steps in General Relativity, or was he already taking courses? I don't remember.

But also, people like Ramanujan, who lacked formal training in math, made important contributions, so I've heard.

These are big exceptions, of course.

In what sense has this happened? — Paine

In the sense that they allowed the US to blow up the Nordstream pipeline. I don't know if Germany was aware of this, but, I think that's counterproductive. Are they confident all Europeans won't mind potentially freezing to death? It's easy to speak of solidarity when one's life is not on the line.

That's just the way it is. There are no alternatives to those two options. None whatsoever. Absolutely zilch in terms of other possibilities. Zero. — frank

A compromise between say, taking a massive chunk of land or total humiliation could be possible. Clearly Russia is not going to get as much as they wanted. Nor do I think it's realistic to think for Ukraine to believe they will keep all of Ukraine, including Crimea.

This is independent of right and wrong for me, its realpolitik. If morals actually entered in wars, which rarely do, then the picture would be different. Sadly, that's not out world.

No Ukrainians were mentioned in this proposal. So the negotiations you promote means cutting off their efforts. You are in the Isaac camp who says the quicker the Ukrainians lose, the better off they will be. — Paine

Who is arming Ukraine? Do you seriously think that Ukraine would have been able to kick Russia back absent US help? They are at the mercy of NATO, which, thankfully, have provided them with the capacity for defense, which I think makes sense.

The sooner the war is over, the better they will be. Them and everybody else.

But worry not, my wishes of a quick end to this has vanished.

That would require a mutual stop of military actions on both sides, regardless of the status they have as victims and aggressors. Why? If we don't have a stop, we will have escalation, as is happening right now. Then more people die, more land could be stolen, etc. It's not good for it to continue.

But some iota of goodwill is needed too. Russia shouldn't say, bomb civilian centers in Kiev, but Ukraine shouldn't be allowing other countries to blow up the pipeline. These options are "weak" militarily, but a gesture goes a long way.

At this moment, it's very hard to see such things happening. But they should continue through back channels or something. I think only Macron, out of the Western leaders still wants to talk. Not to mention 3/4's of the German population would prefer negotiation to escalations.

Right this moment, it's very hard. But further escalation is more fuel for the fire. But, alas, it will continue until the US and Russia decide to talk, absent intervention from another third party. It's not Putin alone. Europe too, especially the leaders of the western countries should be less bellicose. Germany in general had a sane attitude till very recent.

Man, I know we all have busy days and different interests and all that, but you should definitely post like, once a week or so, takes like yours and @Isaac's are the most rational ones to my mind. Some others too, to be fair, but am forgetting specific names.

Others raise fair points and some have legitimate concerns, but the way in which this war has turned many into a Putin is Evil and that's all that matters, is concerning.

Not least because it was not too long ago, for most of us, to remember that if you substitute "Kremlin stooge" for "Anti American" and change "Ukraine" to "Iraq", one can only be shocked at how little progress we've made in seeing through much corporate/militaristic media BS. Not that state run media is better.

Those who want the war to de-escalate are called propagandists for Russia. Unreal.

History repeating, but much worse, because of what could happen.

In any case, what is needed is a negotiation, not an escalation.

With takes like these, who needs satire? I don't see the point in having a discussion with a person who thinks that nuclear war is fine and dandy, because Putin cannot be serious when he says he will use them.

I'm sure you'll find others here who will be happy to humor you. I won't.

:rofl:

You are a lunatic.

We return to that pesky word, "metaphysics", which is now more obscure than it was when it worked on by Aristotle, not that he used the term itself. The historical context may help explain why philosophy sometimes looks lost.

Aristotle has in mind the type of work that allows you to answer questions such as "what is a house?". It was assumed that this could be done: to pick out properties of the mind-independent world and say "that is a house".

But in the 17th century that all changed with the rise of modern science. What's a house is extremely complicated and subtle, so we dropped such high ambitions to ask questions more pertinent to the faculties we have that can actually solve some of the problems in the world, say the position of the planet or gravity.

I don't think we can go back and try to develop extremely complex mental constructions as a basis for philosophy as it often confuses the faculties of the mind with the world itself. Not trivial . This does not entail scientism at all, but it does entail trying to develop the thoughts of many of the classic figures, as they already lay the groundwork for many issues that could have a solution.

So Hume, Kant, Peirce, Russell and others all have plenty of stuff that needs correction and amplification, in my view. To start from zero is possible, but it ignores a large part of what's important in this Western tradition, which is a continued dialogue with its figures, even if it's only one of them.

Well, what can you expect when, being the creatures that we are, we begin to scrape the very fundamental issues of the world? After all, we are dealing with extremely small portions of matter, which we are ill-suited to understand very well. There doesn't seem to be much advantage in terms of selection in having the capacity to do advanced physics.

It's been about 100 years of the quantum revolution, and the main problem, uniting it with relativity remains a hard nut to crack. If someone wants to call this "metaphysics", fine, it's not a wrong use for the word. On the other hand, one can easily imagine another intelligent creature having intuitive ease with quantum mechanics, but struggling with aspect of biology, for instance.

Some of the guesses we have, be it many worlds or loop quantum gravity may be right. Or they may all be wrong. It could be that a non-specialist somehow cracks the problem, but it makes sense to put higher credence on professionals, while always keeping in mind that they could be wrong. As could we, in whatever we choose to do and or study.