Russia isn't a "floundering paper-tiger" as Chomsky puts it. — ssu

He's quoting what he's read in the press, that's not his belief.

Perhaps it's hard for an American to understand that security policy can be about the survival and existence of your country, as Finland and the Baltic States are quite expendable — ssu

I don't think it's hard for him to understand that concept at all.

For instance, he's spoken about the Palestinian issue, and was worried about the problem, before Israel came into existence as a state.

That's a very clear situation in with "security policy can be about the survival and existence of your country". Or the further decimation of what's left of your country in the case of Palestinians.

Sure, Finland has rational security concerns, that makes total sense.

And still, we know that there is a possibility, not a big one, but still a possibility, that Russia's response to a NATO application is a military response. The armed forces understand that this possibility exists. — ssu

Yes, this possibility will always be there. Nevertheless, I think Finland would be put - arguably - in a more delicate situation if it joins NATO, because any small incident in the border, would be a direct confrontation between two nuclear armed organizations.

OK this doesn't make sense. Russia has nukes in Russia. Russia has already nukes in Kaliningrad. Russia's nuclear bombers can launch their cruise missiles well within deep in Russian aerospace out of the reach of Finnish air defenses or Hornet fighters and hit targets allover Finland. — ssu

Again, a small skirmish in the border would be drastically different if NATO were involved, it seems to me.

Nukes would always be a last resort, but between two countries armed with such weapons, they would not wait long to use them. Especially of the militaries between such countries aren't symmetrical.

I mean yes, you can think about it this way, and you are right that Russia (if things don't escalate badly), will learn from this.

But the idea of joining NATO now, would arise much more quickly if Russia did manage to control Ukraine. They're struggling to control cities, which is why they're now pulverizing some of them. And it may continue.

On the other hand, to think that Russia will ever consider developing an army capable of controlling, not only Ukraine, but both Sweden and Finland is crazy. Heck, the US couldn't even deal with Afghanistan, much weaker than Ukraine.

The issue is, by joining having them join NATO, Russia will be forced to put nukes on the borders with Finland, making the situation much more delicate.

And sure, one should fear countries and organizations that have nukes, especially if they tend to be aggressive, as Russia and the US/Europe have shown.

This is quite interesting, especially the first 15-20 minutes, made faster if one chooses 1.5 or x2 speed.

"Whereas notwithstanding it is most true that those corporeal qualities, which they think to be such real things existing in bodies without them, are for the most part fantastic and imaginary things, and have no more reality than the colours of the rainbow, and, as Plotinus expresseth it, 'have no reality at all in the objects without us, but only a seeming kind of entity in our fancies', and therefore are not absolutely any thing in themselves, but only relative to animals. So that they do in a manner mock us, when we conceive of them as things really existing without us*, being nothing but our own shadows, and the vital passive energies of our own souls."

- Ralph Cudworth A Treatise Concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality

*Italics added

Yeah sure, any reform is going to have problems and issues. But the current UN could be improved by making it more democratic, in some manner.

Yes. I think the Security Council ought to be dismantled, it's essentially a way for powerful nations to ignore whatever international laws they do not like, especially during war time.

There's no need to pretend this council does good at all.

The General Assembly should be given more legal authority, as it is more democratic and hence more representative of world opinion.

Bulgaria and Poland ‘refused’ to meet Russia’s roubles demand https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/26/russia-warns-poland-bulgaria-it-will-cut-off-gas-supplies-liveblog

Sure, though nukes were very much considered in Vietnam.

The situation is a bit different. It's the unconscious comfort of thinking that it couldn't possibility happen.

In a sane world, one would be assured.

I have in mind ordinary people, say many who are religious, which may amount to more than half of the world population. It's my impression that they often do think there's something more to mind than brain.

Of course, in a forum like this, it's going to be very rare. But I think the intuition, though wrong, is not irrational. It was very much alive in the neo-Platonist tradition up until, roughly after Newton.

Sorry for my very brief reply earlier, it was too early and I only skimmed it. I read it better now. No, I mean, what you say is undoubtedly true. And nations will use any excuse they can find to justify the craziest of all acts, as history has shown us many times.

The one hope we have left, in terms of having some sense of security and calm, is the belief that they must know better than others, what the consequences of such an act would entail.

Right now, this could be mere barking. But there's no way to see this conflict without putting nuclear weapons very high in the list of concerns. If this was a war between two non-nuclear countries, it would be hard to imagine it would get nearly a 5th of the coverage it currently gets.

Good analysis.

I said that a year ago, when I got here. I probably would phrase it quite differently now.

I'd say something like, for many people, there is such a thing as a soul, to which we can attach certain aspects of mind.

But, the more one looks into these things, the less likely one is to be a strong kind of dualist.

Good post, I agree with much of it. :up:

One last question, this is just curiosity, not attempting to start an argument or disagreement, I really want to see how you think about this:

So right now, we postulate quantum fields. We assume they literally exist. But what happens if in, say, 5 years time we discover something new, say a cube structure is found to be even more fundamental.

What we know to be true now, may turn out to be literally false, just an approximation.

How would you deal with this?

Does anyone here know something that is not true? — Banno

That's a good question. What about things like alchemy and astrology and the people who believe in that stuff. Wouldn't they say they know it's true - even if we would say evidence point to the contrary?

Lavrov likes fear porn too.

It's stupid to call it a bluff, even if it is one.

Then again, why isn't it called fear porn when all the countries in Europe want to join NATO now? Do they really think Russia has the capacity to invade them too?

It's gone swellingly for them in Ukraine after all.

Russia’s Lavrov warns of ‘real’ danger of World War III

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that peace talks with Ukraine would continue, while warning there was a “real” danger of a World War III.

“The danger is serious, it is real, you can’t underestimate it,” Lavrov told the Interfax news agency.

He also criticised Kyiv’s approach to the talks, adding: “Goodwill has its limits. But if it isn’t reciprocal, that doesn’t help the negotiation process.”

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/25/russia-fm-lavrov-warns-of-real-danger-world-war-iii-liveblog

Surely, not everything natural is good. Earthquakes are natural, but suck for people. Hemlock too if used in certain ways, so it's not as if natural is somehow sacred or benign.

There are things called "supernatural", stuff like ghosts, auras and the like. I think these things are based on faulty judgement of perceptions and evidence for these things is shaky at best.

Even if suddenly there is good evidence for these phenomena, why call them supernatural? I mean, we can't find 95% of the universe, but we don't call that "supernatural".

I hear this. The only issue, which I don't think is entirely trivial, is that we don't know what the limits of what "the natural" are. By this I do not mean science and scientific enquiry, but nature in general. We are creatures of nature, so our thoughts, feelings, emotions and reasons are also natural.

But this covers an immense amount of territory. So why postulate something beyond "the natural", if we don't know just how big it is?

It would be a different story if we somehow knew that the natural only covers, say, non-conscious things. Then we would be forced to say that everything mental is supernatural.

But then we are merely stipulating definitions and not discussing the content of these terms.

More on the contrast in epistemology, but with these sources you've given me (and Wayfarer too), I have some things to look into.

Perice was an extreme genius. And would agree with him (and you) about universals. But as I said, I'm very much into Hume these days, reading a good deal.

And it seems to me that, despite the many flaws in Hume's arguments, one can certainly see why he woke Kant from his slumbers. That's not something that can be said about many people.

It's a very complex topic, and while we can say that, as Schopenhauer pointed out, we have some idea of causation from the inside, attributing to the outside world, is still as problematic as Hume pointed it out to be.

I hope Peirce has stronger arguments than what I've seen, but the literature appears to be scant.

Absolutely, nominalism makes no sense.

Yes, I skimmed that one, I suppose I'm more interested in the causation argument, and there is a paper on that, which is OK, but surely there is more to be said. Nevertheless I'll read this carefully. I'll continue my search.

Many thanks.

Check out http://www.commens.org/ — Wayfarer

Very cool, will surely check it out, looks quite interesting. Thanks!

Hey man, sorry for this brief interruption, but you're exactly the person I want to ask.

I'm trying to find literature on Peirce's reaction to some of Hume's ideas. I know there is a manuscript in which Peirce argues against Hume's argument against miracles, but surely there must be more topics discussed, such as causation, or Hume's general phil of mind.

Currently, I only have Peirce's vol.5 and 6 of his CP on hard copy.

Any idea of where to look for more info? Google isn't being particularly helpful here, or I'm searching badly.

Hume's Skeptical Crisis by Robert Fogelin

The Village of Eight Graves by Seishi Yokomizo

Incidentally which book deals with this topic in a comprehensive manner? I have read one by Henry Allison, but It left me wanting more. The article linked here by Wayfarer is also good, though I'd prefer a book on Kant's response to Hume.

Anyone have a suggestion here?

It's true. There are many figures involved, including the psychoanalysts, which may be considered "pre-scientific".

But, one has to speak of William James here, he made important contributions that stand the test of time very well.

Well. If we accept cosmology's standard answer, i.e. the Big Bang, then, perhaps, something like this can happen, something out of nothing. It makes no sense of course, but, the universe has no obligation to make any sense to us, which is a bit of a shame, it could be more considerate.

If out cosmology turns out to be wrong, say, the Big Bang is a cyclical process that goes back forever. If this is true, then, there is no creation. That also makes no sense. So, regardless of what is true in cosmology, it doesn't make much sense.

Well, yes. Ukraine's destruction is pretty much a given, how destroyed is an open question and depends on the relevant actors, mostly Russia.

It's excellent PR for most Politicians in the "West", but, the fight is broader. Ukraine could not defend itself without Western support, they'd be done by now.

The sanctions are very, very harsh. Some of them make sense, particularly to the oligarchs and Putin. Not to the general population. My fear here, and it is still stuck in my head, that they'll put Russia in a spot in which it will go crazy. And they may.

Russia really messed up going into this one, but, the outcome can be devastating.

Well, yeah, that may be true.

But you're a rando w/power. :smirk:

Obviously not Baden, but, I think chances could be better. It could be worse, but, not by much.

This is going on way too long. And these sanctions could destroy Russia and the government, in a way that, though may be "satisfactory" for people who dislike Putin, is not wise. They'll go down in flames before giving up power.

Sorry, I was distracted. I mean, perhaps. I think some explanations I've seem to verge on jingoism. But this whole "bad faith" stuff, it's not worth more than one or two replies.

If they're going to twist your words or say something very silly, I'd just go talk with someone who has a point which I think is good, may be a bit misleading, etc.

But to keep this "Anti-America", "Pro-Putin", "Pro-Democracy", and all these labels, is kind of meaningless. For me.

I don't see the point of arguing after a certain amount of posts. It's roughly clear what each person thinks. But we do "reduce" each other into categories, probably unavoidably.

:cool:

I've only read half of Leibniz's New Essays before I figured I should read Locke before I finished this, and haven't got back to it.

With what I can recall, I don't think Leibniz speaks of noumena. He would probably be against such concepts, given his intellectual optimism.

I think Kant was arguing that Leibniz' monads were the kind of thing of which we could not have knowledge of, nor know how they could be possible.

So I'm thinking Kant was using monads as an example against the idea of "positive noumena".

Hoping it doesn't last long. This really sucks.

No human can even THINK a particular noumenal object, much less perceive one, and if neither of those are possible, they do not even enter the cognitive system. — Mww

Well, it's arguable that Leibnizian Monads could be categorized as such. But we don't know how they would be possible.

Perhaps Cartesian souls too.

Just lookin' for an argument with you. Not much. :cool:

mwwwww!!!!!!!!!

You mean human shields?

According to the article, Israeli intelligence do not believe this will escalate to war.

I hope they are right.

But in a few days, such comments can age like milk.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/rocket-sirens-sound-over-gaza-border-1.10749254

Israel Intercepts Gaza Rocket After Sirens Sound on Border

2022, huh.

The Philosophy of David Hume by Norman Kemp Smith

Confessions by Kanae Minato

You could say that it was Kant who pointed out that the empiricist's ideas of the 'blank slate' were fallacious. — Wayfarer

"Here we have a wide ocean before us, but we must set our sails. Were sense knowledge and understanding [against Hobbes] ,then he that sees light and colours, and feels heat and cold, would understand light and colours, heat and cold, and the like of sensible things... Whereas the mind of man remaineth altogether unsatisfied, concerning the nature of these corporeal things, even after the strongest sensations of them, and is but thereby awakened to a further... inquiry and search about them, what this light and colours, this heat and cold...should be; and whether they be indeed qualities in the objects without us or only phantasms and sensations in ourselves."

- Ralph Cudworth

EDIT:

"The essences of light and colours’, saith Scalinger, ‘are as dark to the understanding as they themselves are to sight’. Nay, undoubtedly so long as we consider these things no otherwise than sense represents them, that is as really existing in the objects without us, they are and must needs be eternally unintelligible. Now when all men naturally enquire what these things are, what is light, and what are colours, the meaning hereof is nothing else but this, that men would fain know or comprehend them by something of their own which is native and domestic, not foreign to them, some active exertion or anticipating of their own minds…"

- Cudworth

I shouldn't keep out Henry More, either:

"That the exact Idea of a Circle or a Triangle is rather hinted to us from those describ'd in Matter then taught us by them, is still true notwithstanding that Objection, that they seem exist to our outward Senses carelessly perusing them, though they be not so. For we plainly afterward correct our selves, not onely by occasion of the figure, which we may ever discern imperfect, but by our Innate knowledge, which tells us that the outward Senses cannot see an exact Triangle, because that an Indivisible point, in which the Angles are to be terminated, is to the outward Sense utterly invisible."

- Henry More

"But now for other Objections, That a Blind man would be able to discourse of Colours, if there were any Innate ideas in his Soul, I say, it does not at all follow; because these Ideas that I contend to be in the Soul, are not Sensible, but Intellectual, such as are those many Logical, Metaphysical, Mathematical, and some Moral Notions. All which we employ as our own Modes of considering sensible Objects, but are not the sensible Objects themselves, of which we have no Idea, but onely a capacity, by reason of the Organs of our Body, to be affected by them. The reason therefore of a blind man's inability of discoursing of Colours, is only that he has no Substratum or Phantasm of the Subject of the discourse, upon which he would use these innate Modes or frame of Notions that are naturally in his Mind, and which he can make use of in the speculation of sundry other sensible Objects.”

- Henry More

EDIT EDIT: No more edits, promise! @Mww, this might pique your interest. These are the people referred to by the great philosophy historian Arthur Lovejoy, as having articulated Kant's philosophy (some important parts of it at least) by several decades, yet these are barely known at all. I learned about it through Chomsky.

In any case Lovejoy, for some unknown reason, was very Anti-German, so, his opinion on German philosophers are to be taken with a grain of salt. Still, he makes a valid point. As I said, maybe this is the type of stuff you find interesting. I don't know.