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.

But neither you nor anyone else can conceive what you are and what "you are" means without language.

He got that right. As I suggested to Un, being an individual is something we inflict... using language.

And Banno reveals he's been a Post-structuralist all along.

The universe isn't rational; rational is a human concept.
— Thanatos Sand

Strange that there are such disciplines as mathematical physics, then.

Strange that you don't know the word "rational" encompasses and/or denotes more than mathematical physics and other such disciplines.

That's what it said. But if that's wrong, just explain how Kripke can say that any properties, including those that are called essential, can be removed from an individual, and yet that individual remains. If you can't, I understand.

I'll give it a shot, but for what Wikipedia's worth, it makes clear Kripke says the opposite of what you said, as--like Aquinas--he sees essences and essential properties as things you can't remove and still remain essential. That makes more sense, since what you posited would be counter to the whole idea of "essence" and "essential".

Kripke shows that any properties, including those that are called essential, can be removed from an individual, and yet that individual remains. T

That kind of goes against the whole concept of "essence" and "essential," and definitely against Aquinas' view of the matter. How does he explain that can happen with those properties still being essential?

So, a rational force permeating the universe (see Paul Davies)? "yes". A deity with a personality revealing Himself/Herself through religions? "no".

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.

↪Reformed Nihilist

I don't understand your objection. Do you disagree that the actions of influential people have wide-reaching consequences for those that look up to them? That one shouldn't, or simply can't think of that when they've entered into suicidal ideations?

You seem to forget that Cornell, Cobain, and Bennington were far beyond a place where they could worry about what influence their actions have. None of us have to bear that burden as we live our lives; so, it's selfish and unrealistic to think those at the darkest, most helpless places in their lives should think how their actions could affect others when they can't even help themselves.

It also isn't obvious to me that everyone that wants to kill themselves or someone else has gone "insane", or what "mental illness" even is besides a disassociation technique to feel insusceptible to the same impulses.

And you are woefully uneducated in both neurology and the science of mental illnesses. Clinical depression and Bi-polar disorder are significantly caused by the brain's inability to produce sufficient serotonin, the chemical greatly responsible for rises in mood, libido, and energy. So, those suffering with those illnesses can have great difficulties feeling motivated to work or function, and sometimes even live, if they are not treated.

So, before you judge these people whose lives were so low they preferred death to it, educate yourself on what might have been the cause of their suffering.

I haven't seen it.

And practopia comes from utopia. So, I have the right word. And the phrase was actually "practical utopia.". Get the phrase right at least.

I think you are hung up on the definition of Utopia - using it as an excuse not to think about how society could be better.

You actually said I'm hung up on the definition on the word "utopia" when we're discussing possible utopias. That's as ridiculous as saying one is hung up on the word "horse" when one is looking to buy a horse.

I'm sorry, Jake, as long as one is discussing utopias, the definition of the word matters. It's a bit odd I have to remind you of that.

Who told you that? Anyways, we are discussing practoipias, mainly in order to circumvent nhihilists.

Nobody told me that, it's a fact you have yet to counter. But feel free to show how something can be a utopia with some people happier than others.

if everyone isn't equally happy, it's not a utopia.
— Thanatos Sand

Oh righty - so call off the search then on the basis of a technicality?

A glaring prohibitive truth is not even close to a technicality.

And now you're quoting fortune cookies. You're adorable.

Yeah, that's stating the obvious. And that's completely irrelevant to what I said in my post.

So, you can't show how it applies to or supports your earlier use of quotes. Good to know.

Have a good day. You and I are done here; I won't read anymore of your posts.

Well, if it does, then show how. I'm not going to make your point for you. If you can't do so, we can just move on.

If you cannot establish that relevance, and you haven't, there's not much more I can do to help you.

Why do you ask?

Sing it, Adorno....:)

That's why a utopia is impossible, a functioning society cannot make everyone equally happy, and if everyone isn't equally happy, it's not a utopia.

Thanatos Sand

No, the funny thing is he wasn't spot on at all, as I never said the name for a thing is necessarily the same as the thing.

He was spot on by virtue of describing something agreeable to my words, not yours. You were arguing against mine earlier, by virtue of misunderstanding. He chimed in earlier in order to share that bit of knowledge with you, seeing that I was quite unsuccessful at it.

Describing something agreeable to your words isnt' being "spot on;" its being replicative. And he didn't even do that.

"Your and Cuthbert's problem is you think when you use the word for the thing you are actually successfully representing the thing itself instead of more words referring to that thing".

Why would you mistakenly conclude that I conflate conceptual meaning with the unknown realm?"

Why would you mistakenly conclude I said anything about an "unknown realm.". Try and read my posts better.

And Cuthbert wasn't even saying what you said he was saying. He was trying to explain the difference between a word in scare quotes and one without them, which wasn't the issue I had been discussing...
Cuthbert was pointing out differences between a plurality of different uses/meaning for using quotes. In other words, he set out the the use of quotes two different ways. The bit about the word not being the thing is akin to the map/territory distinction.

Are you familiar with it?

He was doing nothing of the kind. Again, you need to read posts better before addressing them. I'm sure you can.

Thanatos Sand

You wrote:

The big question is what is he scared of.

In a Trump's situation, if that actor is not scared, it could be for one of only two possible reasons. Either he's done nothing wrong, and he trusts the judicial system's capacity/ability to render proper judgment. Or he's done all sorts of stuff, and he trusts the system to render improper judgment. Being under investigation for criminal wrongdoings such as being part of a proven conspiracy to get yourself elected bears a heavy heavy toll on one's emotional state(s), we can all be assured of that.

That's interesting, but I didn't address the reason why he isn't scared, but what he's scared of.

Few doubt that he has had sketchy dealings with Russia and probably many other countries. But if that's all there is, and all that happens is he pays millions in fines or is even impeached for those dealings, the hordes obsessed with the hope that Russia tampered with the election, and Trump facilitated that, are going to be extremely disappointed.

If that investigation can legitimately lead to financial records that help prove criminal wrongdoing of any variety, then Trump had damned well better believe that he is innocent and that the judicial system will render sound judgment, or that he is guilty and that the judicial system will get it wrong.

Again, this doesn't really address what I said. I appreciate the effort, though.

Goodbye, Rich. I'll let your rant on while I head to another thread.

I get all the not neurology and laughs I need from the TV show Superhuman

Yeah, I bet you do.

So, you're going against the neurologists. Good luck with that one...:)

n

↪Thanatos Sand The potential exists as a real field. I view it as fundamental intelligence. Pretty much what Daoists intuited thousands of years ago. When we see something "out there" it is because it really is out there, not in the brain.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/89104#Post_89104

What real field? I'm sorry, but Daoists dont' take precedence over neurologists in matters of memory.. And there are things in the brain, like the frontal lobes, parietal lobes and the hippocampus. And that's where the neurologists say memory lies. You are, of course, free to go against science and say they're wrong.

How is memory stored in quantum potential if the potential hasn't been realized yet?

Memory has very specific locations where it exists primarily as energy: "Short term memory is found in the frontal lobes and the parietal lobes of the brain. The hippocampus is necessary in forming long term memory but not in the storage of it."

There has been little revelation or exposure of any substantial quid pro quo.
— Thanatos Sand
https://www.vox.com/2017/7/18/15983910/donald-trump-russia-putin-natalia-veselnitskaya-collusion

Sorry, a Russia expert's theory isn't evidence; it's a theory.

Sorry, that's like saying when you hear 5 children died in an orphanage that 25 lived. It may be a good thing, but 5 still died.

Unlike you, I include people in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Honduras as people who matter in the world. And as long as they're dying at the hands of Americans through bombings or coups, there is no Pax Americana. Or, in other words, America has helped kill millions in those countries in the past 20 years. That is a bad thing.

I got you, but the problem with the article is we're not even sure how Putin has profited yet. There has been little revelation or exposure of any substantial quid pro quo. Also, we haven't had the Pax Americana almost this whole Millennium. Obama dropped 26,000 bombs in 2016, he and Hillary helped destabilize Libya, making it a training ground for ISIS, and they have backed Saudi Arabia's slaughter of the Yemeni for almost 2 years. And then there was Iraq and Afghanistan before that. Not much Pax.

Yes this life is fantastic, but it is fantastic within the rules of physics and recorded phenomena.
— Thanatos Sand

Physics doesn't have bearing on metaphysics

You're right. That's why you're absolutely wrong when you say the realities of our physical world supports the existence of reincarnation. They don't.

So now you've changed from a science-hater to a science-worshipper :D

...and of course a Physicalist.

And then you start with the (erroneous) name-calling while failing to address my argument in any way. Considering you can't counter it in any way, that's not surprising.

So, the only one who has demonstrated himself to be a typical troll is you. So, I won't read or respond to any more of your trolling on this thread.

I wasn't trying to be corrective, just informative...:)

The hard split in ideology and politics between Centrists and progressives is a new phenomenon.

[quote...from a leftist rag we should not be paying any attention too...

How Russia Played Trump. ][/quote]

Vanity Fair isnt' a leftist rag. It's a centrist rag that was firmly behind Hillary during the election and punched left by attacking Sanders.

Yes this life is fantastic, but it is fantastic within the rules of physics and recorded phenomena. Neither accounts for reincarnation. So believe in it if you want, but it's no less fantastical than believing in God or the Easter Bunny.

So, skepticism, which demands verification and/or demonstration would not accept reincarnation.

Funny thing is that Cuthbert's last point was spot on. The name for a thing is not necessarily the same as the thing. We talk about things we invent/create. We talk about things we discover.

No, the funny thing is he wasn't spot on at all, as I never said the name for a thing is necessarily the same as the thing. Your and Cuthbert's problem is you think when you use the word for the thing you are actually successfully representing the thing itself instead of more words referring to that thing.

And Cuthbert wasn't even saying what you said he was saying. He was trying to explain the difference between a word in scare quotes and one without them, which wasn't the issue I had been discussing.

The big question is what is he scared of. Few doubt that he has had sketchy dealings with Russia and probably many other countries. But if that's all there is, and all that happens is he pays millions in fines or is even impeached for those dealings, the hordes obsessed with the hope that Russia tampered with the election, and Trump facilitated that, are going to be extremely disappointed.

You absolutely did say that in your post below — Thanatos Sand
Sorry. It does read like that. But did you read unenlightened's post? Here it is

You see?

What are your comments about unenlightened's post? — TheMadFool

Of course it reads that way, and your failure to show how it doesn't after I showed it does helps prove it. The fact you continue to fail to actually define what you mean by "black man whos a white supremacist" helps prove I'm right.

So, since you're just repeating your erroneous, unfounded claims, we're done. I won't be reading or responding to any more of your posts.