Hello mate, how are you doing! I see that the last time you were connected was one month ago. I guess you are in a summer break, but I have some information on Cannabis that I want to share with you.

I was trying 25 % oil CBD. The portion is used at night, just before to go to bed. I bought this from a third person who works in a Tattoo shop. We both were debating about the use of Cannabis for sleep purposes, and he recommended this little jar. It is very small, indeed. I think this proportion is even legal, but I bought so secretly... :lol:

I have a problem. Despite I take the dose everything I cannot sleep very well or even it takes a lot of hours to reach the sleep. Now, I am worried because I am thinking that it has its counter-effects. Nonetheless, we are having a big damn heat wave in Spain, and maybe this is the problem and not the Cannabis itself.

If it would have counter-effects, insomnia would not be one of them, right? I guess Cannabis is far of activate our nervous system. Did you ever have an experience like this?

I am not arguing if it is true or not, I am just trying to understand both of them. :sweat:

Aristotle is using categories to discover differences, whereas Wittgenstein is using categories to discover similarities — RussellA

Thank you RussellA, I appreciate your help and how you explained it so clearly. :up:

On the other hand, the Wittgenstein's text that I quoted previously is integrated in a book of Steven Pinker that I am currently reading and this psychoolinguist says: Concepts in the mind pick out categories in the world, and the simplest explanation of concepts is that they are conditions for membership in a category, a bit like definitions in a dictionary. Most of our everyday categories, and not just games, show Wittgenstein's family resemblance and crisscrossing features.

I understand now that language categories are listed for searching similarities instead of differences. For example: The word "vegetables" is criss-crossed by many different products but similar each other.

Glad to know that there is a thread related to Wittgenstein about commentaries on his work. Thanks to @Sam26 for starting it up years ago. I also want to share a brief paragraph of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations.

66. Consider for example the proceedings we call "games." I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all? - Don't say: There must be something common, or they would not be called "games" - but look and see whether there is anything common to all. - For if you loom at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don't think, but look! -- Look fir example at board-games, with their multifarious relationships. Now pass to card-games; here you will find many correspondences with the first group, but many common features drop out, and others appear. When we pass to ball-games much that is common is retained, but much is lost - Are they all "amusing"? Compare chess with noughts and crosses. Or is there always winning and loosing, or competition between players? Think now of games like ring-a-ring-a-roses; here is the element of amusement, but how many other characteristic features have disappeared!

And the result if this examination is: we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing.
I can think of no better expression to characterise these similarities than "family resemblances" [...] and I shall say: "games" for a family.

This paragraph had an important impact in the 1970s, psychologists and linguists. Many human concepts family resemblance categories rather than classical concepts (Aristotelian).

I consider all of this very interesting in terms of linguistics, but I am quite lost in distinguishing Wittgenstein's categories from Aristotle's. If someone could help me, I would appreciate it so much!

I would think a nomadic lifestyle is similar to travelling/backpacking. While I enjoyed the experience, I eventually missed the comforts and security of home, and it felt like a relief to come back. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Good point! :up:

I think you just posted some arguments to claim that you don't want to be responsible with yourself either the State you live in.

Words and rules: The ingredients of language.
By Steven Pinker.

Humankind had two very good inventions: clothing and writing, and two very bad ones: money and religion. — Vera Mont

Why do you consider religion as a bad invention?

Master and Emperor Mishima, yeah! :100:

Heroic death, yes :flower:
For me, this man will always be the representation of a legend.

He received more respect in Europe/USA than in Japan. :death:

I'm not disagreeing with what is the case de lege lata. I'm just questioning whether that serves as an argument in moral philosophy. There might be lots of reasons why the rules are as they are that are unrelated to a philosophical argument. — Echarmion

Laws are published with the aim of ruling a society objectively (at least that's how I interpret it after eight years of law researcher and public worker). The objective cause here is that every citizen has the faculty of exercise their rights equally. Otherwise, if we put limits depending on the abilities of individuals, the laws would be subjective, which is a terrible mistake.

I do not know whether it is defensible in a "Philosophy of moral" point of view, but a "Philosophy of law" one. What I exposed previously is a "warrant" or guarantee. Every lawmaker shall act with the aim of promoting guarantees for the citizens. Is this moral? I do not know! Let's see what the judges interpret. :smile:

It doesn't follow that it actually makes sense to ascribe rights to someone who isn't even theoretically capable of exercising them. It's the carer who really has the rights and obligations. — Echarmion

You are misunderstanding the concepts. The handicapped person is the one who holds the rights and the carer the one who exercises them. This is the main cause of naming a carer in court, to help others out. This civil rights are taught when you study law.

Non-human animals, as I said. Not sure where you're going with this. — Echarmion

I am lost here. I do not understand what you refer to.

You can unilaterally respect someone or something, but to have a right you need to at least theoretically be able to exercise it. — Echarmion

I disagree. For example: a handicapped person is not capable of exercising a lot of rights by himself. Yet, the state concedes benefits to help them out to exercise them through a legal carer.

Are animal rights really animal rights if no actual (non-human) animals are involved on either side of the process? — Echarmion

What do you consider as "actual" animals then?

Each species has its own characteristics. I am aware that it is a complex matter, but this does not prevent the fact that we should be more respectful towards the animal kingdom. Yes, you are right that it is not the same to be "ethical" with a dog that with a crocodile.

Animals have always been our truest allies ever. Thanks to them, humanity started to become sedentary. We owe them a lot of positive things. Nonetheless, it is proven that most humans acted dangerously against the integrity and perseverance of the animal race. We have destroyed their habitat, burned down their forests, polluted their oceans, etc.

So, in this context, it is necessary to rule on the protection of animals. It is not only an "ought" but a must. For example: In Spain, animals are already considered "sentient beings" and if someone treats them badly, he/she can suffer a lot of consequences in the justice.

I agree with the act of considering animals as part of our society and owning the same rights and respect. I wish most people would be tolerant of the environment and species.

more enlightened legal codes do place some official limits on how their citizen treat other animals. Those laws were no easy matter to legislate! — Vera Mont

I agree. It is true that they were not easy to legislate but it was necessary. I have full respect for those countries which rule towards the integrity of animals. My country is included there and we now recognize animals as "sentient beings". It is the only thing likable of my government indeed. :smile:

The idea was that our ticket derives from a mandate or charge that we have received from the community on account of our importance — Leontiskos

That’s your idea.

We receive +1 shelter because we are "important", just that. I do not interpret this premise as mandatory or an accessory of the two main options of the dilemma. I interpret that the +1 shelter was given randomly in the present scenario.

On the other hand: let's say we use your premise and we say that this +1 shelter is mandatory. What would be your choice and why has it changed from the original position?

Folks go without, it's the norm. — LuckyR

It is the norm, yes. But the context gets serious when your mother is involved. You would not speak about "folks go without" because your sense of attachment to a beloved member would make you think otherwise or at least more seriously. I think this is the "dilemma" that @Paul proposed. The context changes fully when a mother is included.

IDK, I don't think a bunker full of five-year-olds has good survival odds in the long term. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree.

Hello again Bob.

Correct me if I am wrong, but then it sounds like you are simply completely disagreeing with me, no? What are we in agreement about then? — Bob Ross

I agree with your explanation of the truth. I think here is where we agree definitively. You explained that, as much as I interpret truth, it seems that I see truth as a synonymous of being. Well, this is true, you know what is - more or less - on my side in this debate. I wish I had better grammar skills because I am aware that I am not expressing myself properly and maybe this is why you are confused.

I will try it again:

I think that the basic element to understand truth is to understand "objective" and "subjective" previously, because I am considering that "truth" depends on one or the other. "Objective" is where metaphysical or epistemological questions depend on objects. "Subjective" is where they depend on the or a subject. Where objects exist independently of subjects, existence and knowledge are also independent of subjects. "Subjective" implies dependence on what may be relative, uncertain, idiosyncratic, whimsical, and arbitrary.

With those premises, I consider truth objectively as much as existence and knowledge. Otherwise, we can make the mistake of being arbitrary or idiosyncratic. We cannot achieve the truth if subjectiveness kicks in. I said "hallucination" in my previous posts, but we can use other kind of flaw subjective interference. For example: what is truth for you, it could be fake for me. Nonetheless, we have to accept the premise that there is something out there which is real. Whether it is true or false doesn't affect the being.

A lot of this depends on why I was granted a +1 in the first place. — Leontiskos

Why would your decision depend on knowing that specific data?

I think each of us would save our respective mothers. Love and a sense of family belonging is stronger than "utilitarian" choices. Whenever our family - or loved ones - are at risk, our sense of "rationality" falls apart.
I personally think that there is not a dilemma at all. Option B is "A healthy 20 year old acquaintance who you generally like but you're not close to."
I, myself, interpret that the person of option B is just a stranger. I do not care if he is 20 years old and healthy. If it is not close to me, he will not be above my mother in terms of priority.

Does your choice change if B is a friend, or a stranger? Do they have to be a best friend? — Paul

No. It will not change my decision if my mother still be one of the options.

Would your choice actually involve any ethical considerations at all, or would it be a selfish decision which you'd attempt to invent a post hoc ethical justification for? — Paul

I must admit that involves selfish decision. I save my mother because of the familiar attachment. Maybe this is not so "ethical" and some can consider this as a pure act of selfishness.

could you please refresh my memory as to what, then, you are disagreeing with in my assessment of truth? — Bob Ross

We disagree in the assessment of truth because I interpret this concept objectively, without any interference of mind. I didn't say it previously, but I believe that truth doesn't depend on the value of mind or conciousness. Truth is a reality that does exist and "is there", doesn't matter if we are percievers or not. Nonetheless, you consider truth as a "process of uncovering, which requires an uncoverer (mind) and the covered (mind-independent)."
Here is where it lies our discrepancies. I interpret truth objectively but subjectively (If I am not wrong...)

For example, if it is just about determining if one is perceiving something illusory or non-illusory, then one could never determine the concept of concepts (or the concept of anything) because it is non-perceptive. — Bob Ross

I understand. But this is a problem that relies on us, not the truth itself. Again, "determining the concept of concepts" is a task inherent in our knowledge because we need to expand our criteria. But I do not see why that's necessary to uncover the truth, when perception can lead us to artificial illusory "truths"

I totally agree with your post, but…

I think most European progressives now see Britain (probably England in particular) as a rather backwards and regressive place, — universeness

No. Trust me when I say that most people still see the UK (or just England) as a progressive economy and nation. Yes, Brexit was a mistake, but it doesn't imply that British society went backwards afterwards. There are other nations in this world that are worse than the UK, just see Latin America and Africa.

The British and Spanish will forever pay for their legacy of colonialism. — universeness

This is the point where I always disagree with you, but I respect your opinion. Whether the Spanish and British should "pay" for whatever is not a problem/issue of modern societies. There are worse things to debate about and find some solutions. For example, Climate change and the civil war of Sudan.

I wonder how many people in the world still respect all things American? — universeness

I respect American citizens though. We should not mix up politics/politicians/bureaucracy with the country and its people. I would be mad if someone disrespects "Spanish things" because of the incompetence of our politicians and the 2017 Catalonia conflict. I think one thing is not linked to the other.

Imagine if I been told, "hey do not visit London or Glasgow because of Brexit"
This sounds stupid as hell, right?

Hello again Bob!

then wouldn’t that entail you agree with my definition? Or are you only partially agreeing with me? — Bob Ross

Yes, I am partially agree with you.



The problem with my premises or Furmeton’s arguments is that it proves too much. Taken with sufficient seriousness, it is an argument against the possibility of knowledge in general, not just against naive realism. Fumerton cannot recover from the wider implications of such an argument, and his own honest conclusions are that scepticism is difficult to refute, that he doesn't see how we can do so, and that perhaps a philosopher shouldn't adopt some sort of program to refute scepticism.

Real objects are phenomenal, as we ordinarily treat them; and the things that appear are, most of the time, real. That is just the point.
I personally believe that this is common sense. Objects, themselves, are real and we should perceive them objectively. How important is it to perceive them subjectively if we can make the mistake of misinterpretation?

Yet, the big issue is to discern when there is a real object and when there isn't. This weakness on the objective side of perception indicates that the relation between subject and object is not one that, even with undecidability, is ontologically symmetrical (in other words, whether there is always one when there is supposed to be other).

I, myself, was never aware of the significance of umbrella concepts either. As you said, Christianity and Islam are good examples. I never thought about Capitalism or Socialism because I considered them as political/ economic terms, not philosophical.

I think umbrella terms are used wrong. But I am not anyone to criticize others because I used to use them wrong too. Umbrella terms have some categories and depend on the field we are debating about. For example, it is not the same as clearly understanding "Islam" and defining "objective and subjective" (if we consider the latter as an umbrella term. Maybe some would disagree with me)

On the other hand, I think that having present umbrella terms can allow users to be more respectful with some topics: religion, for example. Most of the threads are insulting but I bet that all of those who says "Christ and God are not special" cannot define or understand Christianity at all.

The Ancient Order of English Majors endorses grammar discussions in any thread on any topic. One must exploit the teachable moment. — BC

I will keep in mind this principle and try to improve my grammar skills!

You should just worry about the fluffernutters or whoever it is that rules the Netherlands. And what kind of a name is that for a country, anyway? — T Clark

On behalf of Spain and Charles V, I am sorry @Benkei for this.

Note my correction of BC. — T Clark

I see. You consider “Americans” as the object of the preposition. This is more interesting for me than Trump himself, and I want to know what @BC thinks about your answer, but I do not want to get off topic and I am aware that this is not the correct thread to discuss these things.

Hey Clarky, thanks for teaching me lessons on English grammar. I appreciate it.

But this is a contradiction in terms: you can’t have a perspectiveless perspective, nor a non-perceiver perception. — Bob Ross

Hello again Bob!

I agree with your position. I sound contradictory trying to find out a definition. I will try again: I think "perspectiveless" is not what I was thinking about when I was typing my answer. I believe that truth is self-evident, and I do not know how extensive mind-dependence is on it.

I must admit that it is difficult for me to express myself properly, but the paper I shared yesterday explains better what I want to mean: "But we are still left without clear criteria to distinguish between veridical perception and hallucinatory perception. How do we know when there is and when there is not a real object?"
Then, it seems to be interesting for me the appreciate that Richard A. Fumerton did: "we are never directly acquainted with the fact that a physical object exists..."

I follow Fumerton's argument. In our experience we are, perhaps, directly acquainted with the facts concerning our mental states, but the possibility that experiences are hallucinations proves that we cannot be directly acquainted with the facts concerning physical objects that, beyond our reckoning, may or may not be causes of our experiences.

What, what? :eyes:

What did I say wrong that you didn't understand me?

I understand. Thanks for your kindness, Jamal.

Nearly 500 pages of this deep philosophical substantive thread. Hey, instead of discussing like a Ping-Pong game, we should discuss why this was never put in The Lounge.

An "unmanifest mind" – how do we know it "objective exists"? — 180 Proof

Why we should know anyway? objective exists both separately and independently from us. It doesn't matter if we "know" or "are aware" if it does exist or not.

The sons of bitches should leave the US politics to us Americans. "Us" is the object of the preposition "to". — BC

Interesting.

Thanks BC. I learned a new lesson on English grammar this morning, while I am taking my breakfast. :up:

Unless by “perceived objectively” you mean a “perspectiveless perceiver of reality”? — Bob Ross

Exactly.

It sounds like, and correct me if I am wrong, you are using ‘truth’ and ‘being’ interchangeably; — Bob Ross

No, I use them as different terms as clearly. On one hand, we have "being" that needs a precise definition of its concept. Every object is a "being" and we just define them to introduce them into our vocabulary with the aim of understanding our "reality".
On the other hand, we have “truth”, which also needs a precise definition of the concept. I agree with you in this point, when you interpret it as “It is the activity of uncovering what is, which is not what is itself.”

Apart from those premises, I still defend that one of the "weaknesses" of truth is hallucinations or the abuse of subjectiveness when we are defining. Sometimes, we can all be wrong when we "uncover" what it is.

Or as Augustine puts it: "all truth is God's truth." The Father is the universal ground, so all truths trace back to God (and are known through the Son/Logos, by the Spirit). — Count Timothy von Icarus

I didn't know that definition of Aquinas. I personally think that it is simplistic and drives us to reductionism. I would understand it in a theological version but not from a metaphysical perspective.

St. Thomas believed, with Aristotle, that universal natures or essences are real and present in individual beings. I guess this is called "Realism"

While Aquinas might find some ground in Aristotle's metaphysics to quibble over the implications of this, it is quite obvious, for instance, from Aristotle's writings that his God works no miracles or in any other way abridges the regularity of the laws of nature -- something required by Christian theology.

On the other hand, I think we should mention William of Ockham who argued that only individual beings are real and that universals do not have objective existence, etc.

What is objective vs subjective? :
Here's a trick to help you remember the difference between subjective and objective. Subjectivity is self-centered and based on speculations, sentiments, and experiences. Objectivity is outward-focused and based on observable facts and data that can be proven true. — Gnomon

Wow! Thanks for sharing, Gnomon. That’s the definition of objective and subjective I urgently need.
I am currently having a debate on this matter with @Bob Ross and we are trying to find out a definition of both concepts. Your post made it clearer and helped me to have a more precise comprehension. :up: