Since some are legitimately including fiction, my top ten philosophical fiction works:

1. Hamlet
2. Paradise Lost-John Milton
3. Ulysses-James Joyce
4. The Brothers Karamazov-Fyodor Dostoevsky
5. Ubik-Philip K. Dick
6. Beloved-Toni Morrison
7. New York Trilogy-Paul Auster
8. Heart of Darkness-Joseph Conrad
9. The Crossing-Cormac McCarthy
10. Absalom, Absalom- William Faulkner

Philosophizing and having a good sense of humor and being perceptive are great, but in themselves they rarely help people or significantly contribute to society or those in need. So, I still don't see the ethics in their asceticism.
— Thanatos Sand

Maybe you haven't spent enough time around people devoid of a sense of humor to understand how valuable a sense of humor can be. As for philosophizing... That's what we do here. Is it of any value? I think so.

No, I've been around both people with humor and those without. I've never seen someone actually significantly help people in need with it. Is that what your friend does? Like Patch Adams?

And while the philosophizing we do here may be of value--one could make that argument for most anything--it certainly isnt' helping people in need, nor is it significantly contributing to society. So, I'd hardly call our choice to participate in this as ethical behavior, but more like a productive pastime.

Original meaning of 'askesis' is training. Many athletes are 'asketic' in that sense. But in Plato's day, athletic, spiritual and intellectual excellence were regarded as complementary.

Sure, but we're not in Plato's day anymore and the word has changed to its new Modern English meaning, like many other words. So, spiritual and intellectual excellence are not necessarily complementary anymore.

As a person partial to nihilism, I'm aware of how the whole "God", "morality" and "rationality" stuff are loaded words and mostly made up (or at least I'm aware of it on my better days), so I'm not entirely interested in it unless you really have something to add that I haven't really come across or perhaps even come across not that often. Even if someone is a nihilist they have to subscribe to some sort system of beliefs because it is part of the human condition to do so, and when doing so they adhere to some kind of "morality"/"rationality" even if it is merely hedonism or some kind of fabricated set of rules.

No, it's more like you're not a person partial to sufficient education as none of those words are "loaded" words, and they are part of common usage in the English language and present-day American culture. I'm sorry you missed that. And I don't care what you have interest in as I don't predicate what I say on what other people want to hear, particularly when they are people whose intelligence I don't particularly respect, as your last few posts have made you one of those. As to your last sentence starting with "even," it is an irrelevant nonsequitur that doesn't address what I wrote In any way.

"No context is needed here. "Rational" is a human concept also applied to human behavior and is constantly changing in its definition. So, it can only religiously be applied to the universe which entails neither the arbitrariness of human behavior, nor the arbitrariness of definition."
--Thanatos Sand

It is pretty much a given that your statement (or any statement coming from anyone) is coming from some context/paradigm unless all you are doing is trying to blow air past your teeth and [waste your time as well as our own.

No, that isn't clear at all, and you haven't shown it to be. So the only one trying to blow air past their teeth and waste their time as well as our own is you.

How exactly is their motivation ethical if it doesn't make it easier for them to help their families or others? It would seem to lower their ability to do either.
— Thanatos Sand

These guys (mostly guys) couldn't have supported and didn't have families. There are ways of helping people that don't involve money; two guys operated a used book store (which they also lived in) and were available to philosophize. One of the guys--Larry--was at least in his 50s. He was toothless, not too healthy, dressed in old clothes; a decrepit guy, looked like a bum. But Larry was smart and well educated and had many theological and philosophical interests. He also had a good sense of humor and was quite perceptive.

I never said there weren't ways to help people that didn't involve money, but it is hard to come up with the time and resources to help people when one is always working for subsistence. Philosophizing and having a good sense of humor and being perceptive are great, but in themselves they rarely help people or significantly contribute to society or those in need. So, I still don't see the ethics in their asceticism.

Their motivation is ethical and they do not sponge off parents or social benefit programs. Generally they do work to maintain themselves in independent poverty (food, shelter, minimal essentials).

How exactly is their motivation ethical if it doesn't make it easier for them to help their families or others? It would seem to lower their ability to do either.

You're reading important stuff. To me the three most central thinkers to Modernism are Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche, with Kierkegaard the dark horse.

And fetishization, never forget fetishization....:) Use value versus exchange value Is huge too.

You're not very good at this, are you?

The initial investigation concerned Russian interference in the election. That is a given. Warrants were issued based upon evidence relevant to that. That's how it works.

I'm the only one here that's good at this. The initial investigation concerned speculation, not evidence, Russian hacked the election. So, we have no idea why these warrants were issued. That's how it works.

I'm tired teaching you logic, English, and our legal system. So, I'm moving on, leaving you to dance with yourself.....Ciao.

It really is, as it pretty much foretells the value system Capitalism will develop and we have right now. The first third is the most important part, so as long as you get the ideas.

Provide your argument in less convoluted terms. State the premisses and a valid conclusion from them, and we can take it from there. ]

I've provided my argument in perfect and clear terms, and you certainly haven't shown I haven't. The only one whose arguments were convoluted--and erroneous, fallacious, and dishonest--have been yours.

286
p1. Warrant requires evidence
p2. Warrants have been issued
C1. There is evidence

The primary premiss is true. The secondary premiss is true. The conclusion follows from the premisses.

Sigh...

1. The primary premise is incomplete because it does not support your claim that a warrant specifically went out concerning the hacking of the election.

2. See number 1.

3. So, no evidence is necessitated by one and/or two, and you further show how lost you are.

I'd go with Twilight of the Idols as my number two. Dostoevsky is philosophical literature for me as he works to avoid making a prescription with his work, instead trying to incite thought like Shakespeare or the Tragedicians did.

There's a bit of irony here involving the operative thought/belief that Sand is working from, given the title of the thread.

Faux news strikes again by virtue of establishing the framework of discussion. This time in terms of "there is no evidence".

No, the irony is Creativesoul is providing "faux news" by asserting there's evidence when none has been provided after 8 months and nothing points to anyone having any.

Address mine, and offer yours.

I've offered my argument. As I showed above, you misread and or misrepresented all of them. Address what I actually said without doing so, as I've already addressed yours.

My argument goes like this...

p1. Warrant requires evidence.
p2. Warrants have been issued.
C1. There is evidence.

P1..you have no idea what the warrant is for, so it doesnt' mean there's evidence Russia hacked the election or Trumps campaign facilitated it.

P2. Yes, but not necessarily for the hacking of the election. And considering the FBI never examined the DNC servers, what they call evidence may still be nothing.
'
P3. And you prove again how lost you are.

Sand wrote:

...the fact no evidence has been provided, when prosecutors are allowed to release it, after 8 months helps prove how lost you are.

Releasing the evidence of an ongoing investigation into the public sphere is not allowed. That is especially true regarding cases of this magnitude.

Sigh...

That is not true at all, and you haven't come close to cite the case supporting your false statement.

Sigh....

I wrote:

Evidence provides warrant. Warrant provides expansion. The investigation is expanding. Thus, it is clear that there is evidence despite it's not having been provided to the public.

Sand replied:

And you further prove how lost you are., You don't need a warrant to release evidence already gathered. That's nonsensical.

You're arguing against an imaginary opponent. I didn't say that, nor does it necessarily follow from what I have said. I laid out a line of reasoning whereby we can gather a few facts and draw a conclusion based upon them. You've responded to things I did not claim and ignored what I did.

You actually wrote, "I'm claiming that there is evidence, despite the fact that it has not been provided to the public. That is borne out by the everyday events. Evidence provides warrant. Warrant provides expansion. The investigation is expanding. Thus, it is clear that there is evidence despite it's not having been provided to the public."

So, you left the top part I actually addressed to try to make it look like I was "arguing against an imaginary opponent." When you have to lie like you just did., you know you have a bad argument.

Sigh...

So, it is not close to clear they have evidence, and the fact they've released none after 8 months makes it most likely they have none.

So, your argument goes like this...

p1. Warrant is not needed to release evidence.
p2. No evidence has been provided.
C. There is no evidence

That's not my argument at all as you leave out the key elements of it bein 8 months passed with no evidence and I said it was most likely they have none. Again you lie and misrepresent my argument which further proves how terrible your argument is.

I agree...:)

1. The Sickness Unto Death--Soren Kierkegaard
2. Writing and Difference--Jacques Derrida
3. The Postmodern Condition--Jean-Francois Lyotard
4. I and Thou--Martin Buber
5. Anti-Oedipus--Deleuze & Guattari
6. The Birth of Tragedy--Friedrich Nietszche
7. Phenomenology of Perception--Maurice Merlau-Ponty
8. Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime--Immanuel Kant
9. Capital--Karl Marx
10. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding--David Hume

I did; may I suggest you learn to read better? 8-)

279
You're lost.

The one who is lost here is you, and I've made that very clear.

I'm claiming that there is evidence, despite the fact that it has not been provided to the public — creativesoul

Yes, and the fact no evidence has been provided, when prosecutors are allowed to release it, after 8 months helps prove how lost you are.

Evidence provides warrant. Warrant provides expansion. The investigation is expanding. Thus, it is clear that there is evidence despite it's not having been provided to the public.

And you further prove how lost you are., You don't need a warrant to release evidence already gathered. That's nonsensical. So, it is not close to clear they have evidence, and the fact they've released none after 8 months makes it most likely they have none. You actually see them providing no evidence after 8 months when they can release it as proof they have it...extremely lost.

Here's something to consider though...

Proving that Russians hacked the dnc server and that Trump's campaign facilitated that is not necessary for proving that one satisfied the expressed objective of Russian intelligence operatives.

I never said it was, but proving one satisfied the expressed objective of Russian intelligence operations does not mean the Russians hacked the DNC server and that Trump's campaign facilitated that.

The claim that "there is no evidence the Russians hacked the DNC and no evidence Trump or his campaign facilitated that" means something quite different from "there has been no evidence provided that the Russians hacked the DNC and no evidence provided Trump or his campaign facilitated that".

No, it doesn't because that's exactly what people mean when they say "there's no evidence.' They dont' mean "there's no possible evidence anywhere in the world." Don't be ridiculous.

The former, in order to be justified and true, requires knowledge of all evidence in question. The latter requires only knowledge of the evidence s/he has seen. The former presupposes knowledge of all the evidence, whereas the latter does not.

See my statement above as to why your passage here is nonsense too.

If by "there is no evidence" you mean that there has been no evidence provided, then I'm fine with that. A prudent prosecutor doesn't show evidence until s/he is actually making the case. With that in mind...

The investigation is broadening.

Sorry, you don't get basic Criminal Procedure. A prudent prosecutor has to show ample evidence to even get her case to trial and is then required to share all evidence with the defense once it starts. Its' been 8 months and they have still provided no evidence, and we now know the FBI didn't even examine the DNC servers. So, it may be "broadening" but its discovered and provided bupkas. So, the country certainly cant be expected to believe Russia hacked the election at this point.

Thus, it is clear to anyone who knows how evidence is required for warrant and warrant required for expansion that there is most certainly evidence that the public does not know about... yet.

That is nonsense. You are saying they have provided no evidence, but the investigation moves on so there must be evidence. They aren't just investigating the hacking of the election, so you have no idea what evidence (if any) they have or where they are going. They still have shown nothing and have shown no ability to provide anything.

Sorry, that claim doesn't rest on a dubious presupposition and you haven't shown it has. It's been over 9 months since Hillary has made her claim and no evidence has been provided.

That's what no evidence means, not that there's no possible evidence out there somewhere

What claim works from a very dubious presupposition? My claim certainly doesn't.

Lots of stuff correct here, particularly about the DNC rigging the primary against the better candidate and defrauding his voters and donors, but there is no evidence the Russians hacked the DNC and no evidence Trump or his campaign facilitated that.

Not if they're right like I was; you must spend little time around people who are right. I'm not surprised.

You clearly can't defend your erroneous point, so I'll let you enjoy your meltdown in peace. Ciao.

The only silly one has been you, and thanks for proving what I just said.

No, you just contradicted yourself, and you still havent' shown why one has to make distinctions between the universe and its objects, and the earth and its oceans, but not the ocean and its waves. So, all you've taught me is you've contradicted yourself and don't know what you're talking about in this subject.

Thanks for the lesson...:)

Thanatos Sand Every symbolic distinction has a practical application

If that's true, then you were wrong when you said we shouldn't make distinctions between the oceans and their waves. Good to know.

There are practical reasons too make distinctions and there are practical reasons not to.

Even if it was just a matter of practicality, and it isn't, you haven't shown why the separations I mentioned are any more practical to make than separating the Ocean and its waves. Feel free to do so at any time.

The ocean is the ocean. It is continuous. We make the distinctions, when viewing the ocean from a given perspective. One can turn it upside down and say all the waves contain the ocean. There are and there isn't one or the other or both.

If one can't make distinctions between the ocean and the waves within it, there's no reason to make a distinction between the Earth and the oceans and lands within it, or the universe and the objects within it.

Corrected Post

The media I encounter uses bullshit to make money. Article after article dangles some tempting news before the reader only to fail to deliver in the fine print. Big speculations no news. I've generally turned away from it.

Definitely. CNN, MSNBC and pretty much all MSM have become the dealers of stories where there "appears" to be something, or it "seems" to be the case. Instead of reporting the actual facts in their Russia conspiracy theory frenzy, they're--to tantalize readers obsessed with the story and personally invested in a Russia-tampered election, and they're own biases--constructing narratives of possibility and conjecture....not quite the way Woodward and Bernstein did it.

There's not much of a significant difference here. The universe isn't rational; rational is a human concept. The universe is only guided by rules dictating the mass, energy and movement of its phenomena."
--Thanatos Sand

In what context are you using this in since it could be from a variety of paradigms and it doesn't sound like a thing that most Christians would say since if there is no "rationality" or "good" that it is sort of a given that there is no God, but than again your definition of rationality or good may be different than what is commonly used.

No context is needed here. "Rational" is a human concept also applied to human behavior and is constantly changing in its definition. So, it can only religiously be applied to the universe which entails neither the arbitrariness of human behavior, nor the arbitrariness of definition.

Here it is again, Banno. If you want to address it fine, If not, that's fine, too, but it certainly expands and expounds on what you wrote.

Banno
"An individual is not identified by a substance or a bundle of properties, but in most cases by our treating the individual in a certain way.

If you like, an individual is an individual only because we place it in that role in our language games"

In our language games and in our language. And as Lacan points out, the value of our words within our language vary, so our varied placements and movements within language also affect our value within our cultures/societies and our accesses to power.

A direct response to your post doesn't have to explain its relevance. If you can't see it's relevance, I can't help you.

↪Thanatos Sand Hm. Relevance?

Direct response to your post.