Yes, Coopers comes up a bit too.

Thanks. So Kant actually addresses this concern directly. :smile:

Christ, it's hard to read. What does it say...

Environmental issues are an important issue, indeed, but I think every country of the world should promote their national products. I — javi2541997

Well, amongst Australian national products are institutional racism and laziness - we don't need to promote these. I don't drink alcohol, but in the days when I did, I rarely drank beer or wine. I actually found that there was some marvellous Tasmanian made whisky. But for the most part, I supported Scotland (J&B) and Ireland (Jameson's). I was never a connoisseur.

Makes sense.

Lawson vs. Patterson was a part of the culture wars in the eighties. — Banno

I must have been away that day. :wink: What was the point of that fight? I was in the Keating versus Hawke stoush back then.

Out of curiosity, I read most of Lawson's stories and a few Patterson pieces when I was a voracious reader in the 1980's but then I also tired to read Xavier Herbert...

I'm looking for some recognised expertise, not just an anonymous member of a forum, like us. I want something that I can cite. You seem to be making this all about you and it's actually about Kant. :wink:

I’m not looking for a rebuttal, I am looking for some expertise on Kant, perhaps a scholar on this matter. What is the expert consensus (if there is one) on this frequently touted weakness of the CI?

Why should you fallaciously appeal to the authority of a Kant expert in order to bypass or overrule my counter-argument of that critique? — Arcane Sandwich

Settle down. I will do as I want.

I think that Crocodile Dundee created the stereotype, — Arcane Sandwich

No. The stereotype was decades old. Which is why we resented its use.

It's a common critique of Kant. We should ask a Kant expert.

Lawson and Patterson are historical relics of a bygone day. Most Australians under 50 would probably not have heard of them. I have never heard a kangaroo joke in my life. Australians of my generation generally ignored their own culture and embraced overseas books, films and food. When Crocodile Dundee came out, many of my friends initially refused to see it as it was dealing in lazy cliches about the bush held mainly by American tourists. We saw Paul Hogan as pandering to that demographic to make a quick buck. Which he proceeded to do. Many bucks indeed.

but the first Australian thing that comes to my mind is Foster's beer, not AC/DC. — javi2541997

I don't think anyone here drinks Fosters. Most Australians I know drink imported beers like Asahi or Corona. Different in the country I'd imagine. ACDC? The US and Europe are their biggest markets. As I understand it, only one of the band was born in Australia, the rest are from the British Isles. :wink:

Is that right? — Arcane Sandwich

I'm not a Kant expert. But the categorical imperative - essentially - Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. This leads to the infamous scenario that if Nazis are asking you if you have Jews hiding in your attic, you must tell them where they are because lying is wrong. Hence: Do what is right, though the heavens may fall. Adhering to an absolute principle regardless of the situation seems rigid and can lead to tragic outcomes.

I think that Kant is right in the universal context—for me the mistake he makes is transferring that truth to all particular situations as a rigid notion of duty. — Janus

For what it's worth this is my read of Kant too. The old saying, often attributed to Kant - 'Do what is right, though the heavens may fall.' - hints at what the consequences of a rigid consequentialism might be. I sometimes think of this categorical imperative as a kind of blunt scientism of morality, if that makes sense.

:up: I've probably asked this before, but if your thesis is that the world is mind created, then why would maths and time and space not also be similar products of the human mind, a matrix of cognitive gestalts, if you like, rather than a reflection of some objective reality which (mostly) transcends our experience?

I'm betting on the 5th or the 12th.

↪Tom Storm? — Banno

I haven't heard anything yet.

And can you see how this notion doesn’t take away from science the usefulness that we know it has in our lives? People tend to go into a panic when you suggest his to them, as if the ground has been pulled out from under them and suddenly cats will be mating with dogs and murderers will run rampant in the streets. But accepting this idea of science as contingent artifact leaves everything exactly as it has been. It just gives us further options we didn’t see before. — Joshs

Absolutely. I accept that something doesn't have to be 'true' (or correspond to reality in some mysterious way) to be incredibly useful.

I don't think it's so black and white—either this or that. We formulate the laws of nature, but we are constrained in those formulations by what we actually observe to be so. We see regularities and invariances everywhere we look. We encounter number in our environments simply on account of the fact that there are many things. — Janus

Sure. I guess this is a common sense account. By the way, I have no commitments either way, I am just interested to hear more.

I think there is confusion around the term 'platonic realm'. There is a domain of natural numbers, right? Where is it? — Wayfarer

Yes, I'm aware of these arguments and well summarised. But what we don't often hear are the ideas @Joshs has proposed in more detail. I find them particularly interesting. I guess I used the term platonic realm as a short cut for transcendental.

why is it that mathematical predictions so often anticipate unexpected empirical discoveries? He doesn’t attempt to explain why that is so, as much as just point it out.
— Wayfarer

Apparently he has some ideas concerning why that is so.
Wigner wrote:

“It is important to point out that the mathematical formulation of the physicist's often crude experience leads in an uncanny number of cases to an amazingly accurate description of a large class of phenomena."He adds that the observation "the laws of nature are written in the language of mathematics," properly made by Galileo three hundred years ago, "is now truer than ever before.”

I myself am a critic of ‘scientism’, the attempt to subordinate all knowledge to mathematical quantfication, but I don’t think that invalidates Wigner’s point.
— Wayfarer

If Wigner’s point is that the laws of nature are written in the language of mathematics, then that’s precisely what I’m trying to invalidate. It’s the human-constructed norms of nature that are written in the language of mathematics, not anything to do with nature ‘in itself’. — Joshs

I find this some of the most interesting ideas on the forum. The notion that scientific laws and maths are contingent human artifacts rather than the product of some Platonic realm seems more intuitively correct to me. But as an untheorized amateur, I would say that.

I guess Argentina would just be Spanish Texas then, or something like that. — Arcane Sandwich

Most Australians tend to see themselves as sophisticated city folk, urban hipsters, etc, emulating New York and London rather than any hic desert state. If you travel around Melbourne, most people see themselves in terms very similar to Californians. Ditto Sydney. In fact, I think there used to be an old saying that Sydney is the better half of California.

But up North we do have a Texas-like culture, everything is big and the ideas are often small (with apologies to Austin).

The other aspect of Australia is that the country is so big that most of us never travel to parts of it. I have never been to the North or West of the country. In Melbourne and Sydney you will meet many people who have been to Argentina or France but never been to Darwin or Perth.

Then it's oxymoronic because it can't be dysphoric and be good. — Hanover

This sounds like you're just playing word games. The bigger point isn't about the word 'dysphoria' but the concept of transitioning to a desired state—the idea that happiness, or even euphoria, can be achieved by changing gender and thereby feeling normal. I would take it as good that more people are able to identify a problem and be supported in the solution rather than spending their lives suppressing who they are.

There simply is no good logical explanation — Hanover

I make no comment on any so-called logic or attempts to paint transitioning as somehow deviant or unnatural. And I won't enter into yet another futile anti-trans debate masquerading as a search for truth (not that you necessarily approach it like this, but many do.) My point was a simple response to whether it is on the rise. And it may be on the rise because more people feel brave enough to express their identity, and take action - not because the commie, woke, progressives have done something nefarious to our youth... :wink:

I'd respond by saying that we shouldn't allow the Nordic person to be accepted as Asian. If you don't agree with me, why not? — Hanover

Your argument sounds like a case of false equivalence or a slippery slope style fallacy.

How is this not like the response to the 'love is love' argument for gay marriage: 'Next thing they'll want to marry a fridge or an animal'? How is this not like the response on homosexuality that permitting it is the slippery slope to bestiality or paedophilia? All familiar 'arguments'.

And who knows, maybe in the future the notion of gender and race will be be abolished and we may well be able to chose from many identities.

:up:

I'm glad to hear you experience this differently. — Benkei

:up:

The OP maybe is as much about my own biases as anything else — Benkei

Cool. Yep, and all I'm offering is my observations and built in biases too.

How can more options lead to more people being unhappy with their selves? — Benkei

I think more options mean there are likely to be more ways of being authentic (in the West), which is likely to promote more potential satisfaction. We are no longer limited to mainstream looks, orientations, lifestyles or cultures. When I grew up it was harder.

Gender dysphoria is on the rise and this is not driven by the availability of sex-change operations; and that's for me the main hint something is not going well. — Benkei

I'm no expert but it may be a positive sign that gender dysphoria is on the rise. Perhaps it shows a truer figure of the issue's prevalence, which was suppressed for so long. People often point to how a hundred years ago left handed people were rare, maybe 2%. Once it was accepted that being left handed was not a sign of evil or a bad practice, the percentage increased to maybe 12%. As it happened, I used to try to write left handed and I remember the teacher slapping my left hand and intoning, 'That's wrong!' That was 1970.

Nowadays, nobody is allowed to be ugly. If you're a teenage boy and don't have a six-pack and spend 3 days a week in the gym, you're not meeting the expected standard. — Benkei

I can see why people might think this, but it's not what I'm seeing. Maybe it's different in Australia. Unfit and perhaps unattractive people don't seem to find it hard to make friends and get laid, from what I can tell. And it's even cool to belong to the nerd group, which definitely wasn't a thing when I was 15. I think it may well be true that certain subcultures and occupations have set standards which may be unattainable to some others, but I recall that being a thing 40 years ago too. Overall, I think self-confidence and purpose will get you almost anywhere. Always have.

When I say that violence of war is out of date I am thinking of how many people see the use of war and violence in religion as being something to be avoided. — Jack Cummins

I understand that, but I don't think this matters. Many soldiers I've known feel this way too and yet were committed to conflicts when they were called to them. How do you think we would ever arrive at a time when humans won't fight over territory and values? I am not a utopian or a pacifist nor do I make any comment as to whether war is natural or whether nature can be overcome. Not sure if notions of essentialism or 'human nature' give us anything.

I think war is simply a part of being human. What could be more natural than seeking to expand territory and values and finding enmity along the way?

It is natural in that way, but could be seen as a rather outdated approach to life if it is about literal violence. — Jack Cummins

What would make 'literal violence' out of date: do you mean by this physical violence? Do you have a model of progress which can demonstrate that violence is less intrinsic to human behaviour over time? I know this is a popular view among progressives.

There is also the evolutionary possibility of people thinking of avoiding destruction. — Jack Cummins

I'm not a big fan of projecting untheorised interpretations of evolutionary theory upon behaviours. But if you must say this, then we can also sat that there is also the possibility of people thinking of more destruction in order to gain control over land and values.

If there were weapons that could vaporise people but leave all buildings and infrastructure in place, that could be viewed as less destructive and yet be more deadly.

:up: Thank you. Plato's one thing, but what do you think? Later is fine. Personally, I struggle with theories. I just intuit my way around. I'm rarely caught short. :wink:

All goodness, even the good of mere appearances, is a reflection of the Good, like light refracted through different mirrors, some more smokey than others. We see now "through a glass darkly." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Is this your belief too?

The transcendent, to be properly "transcendent" cannot be absent from what it transcends. Likewise, the absolute is not reality as set over and against appearances, but must encompass all of reality and appearances, both what is relative and in-itself. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I get the theory. How would we demonstrate that this is the case? It also seems kind of circular: claiming that the absolute encompasses all reality and appearances, doesn't it take for granted what it is supposed to establish?

What I am interested in is how we might defend the idea of an absolute goodness which somehow is the grounding for all instantiations of goodness. I get the various schools, but they take this axiomatic. How could it be demonstrated? But let's not get into too much detail, a rough sketch would be perfectly adequate.

I don't think greed explains anything much. We need to look at what underlying needs are being met. Greed itself isn't a need, it's a downstream response. So, the real question is: what are greed's drivers?

I find this to be useful for thinking about the nature of the philosophy of war (and peace). Understanding and reflecting on the nature of war may helpful as a stepping stone towards thinking beyond it. I wonder if this applies to current situations of wars in the world in the 21st century. Any thoughts? — Jack Cummins

Isn't war (armed conflict) in general about gaining territory and control of values? What could be more natural to humans? I don't think people's inner turmoil tells us much about war. I also think we throw the word 'war' around with cavalier imprecision because it has (or use to have) a journalistic gravitas: as in the war of terror, the culture wars, the war on poverty, etc.

Oh, to be in Times Square in 1963!

What is the cause of your lack of curiosity? — javi2541997

Probably just getting older I have less motivation to explore the world through books and am more interested in people.

Who knows! Maybe you could end up having curiosity in Hispanic literature — javi2541997

I read Lorca poetry in the 1980's (he was being rediscovered here) - my girlfriend was obsessed with him. Pretty sure we saw his play El maleficio de la mariposa. Wonderful rich stuff. I adored Cervantes - some of the story digressions in the Don are a bit much. The Lost Steps by Cuban writer Alejo Carpentier was really memorable. Not an easy book to find these days. Perhaps this is a gauche comment but Spanish appears to be the most euphonic and beautiful language for literature.

Agree, nicely put. What might be an example of such an absolute good and how might we demonstrate this?

You might take it that far, but it can be far more concrete. Consider picking out a school for your kid or buying a car. You want a school/car that is truly good, not one that merely appears to be good, or one which is said to be good by others. Likewise, if you have back pain, you want a treatment that will truly fix it, not just one that appears good or is said to be good. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, although I might say this is a contingent form of good as it would be 'truly good' for a specific purpose - my back - and such an efficacious approach may not work on other's backs or even mine, a year later. So the good is relative to a set of circumstances.

But I get what you are saying.

The desire for what is truly good is what takes us beyond appearances (generally the purview of the appetites) and "what others say" (generally the purview of the "spirited part of the soul," particularly our concern with honor, status, reputation, etc.). It's the desire for what is really true and truly good that consistently motivates us to move beyond current belief and desire. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But wouldn't the search for such good generally always be a good which is fit for practical purpose founded in experiential practices, rather than a platonic notion of good?

t's also reason that allows for us to have coherent "second order volitions," i.e., the desire to have or not to have other desires. E.g., "I wish I didn't want to x..." It is what allows us to ask "I have a strong desire for x, but is x truly desirable?" Or "I am enraged with Y and have a strong desire to vent my wrath, and to restore my honor, but is this truly good?" The target of these questions lies outside current desire and belief. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, I can see this.

Might it not also be argued that reason itself is a part of human practice and shaped by history and culture, so when viewed from this perspective, reason cannot take us entirely "beyond" our current contexts. In other words it can't really take us to the 'truly' part of truly good... Thoughts?

In the modern tradition, reason is often deflated into mere calculation. So, the desire aspect tends to get lost. IMO, this is precisely what makes Hume Guillotine even plausible in the first place. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, as a person of the current time and place I do tend to regard reason as a tool or calculating mechanism. It helps us to solve problems - which may just be expressing a low-rent form of pragmatism (my specialty). And defending the use of reason raises problems of self-referential circularity.

It also seems to me that reason can be blunt and often abstracted and that the matters of importance, such as aesthetics, values and belonging are beyond reason and are more like sense making via affective responses. And yes, we all know the risks inherent in this. I guess reasoning can help us develop balance and perspective. It also seems to be that idealizing reason can swiftly lead us to scientism or fascism or any number of isms.

I guess this all goes to your point

So, the desire aspect tends to get lost. IMO, this is precisely what makes Hume Guillotine even plausible in the first place. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is because reason is, in an important sense, transcendent, which is precisely what allows it to take us beyond current belief, habit, desire, etc. in search of what is truly good and really true. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What do you mean by reason being transcendent?

Do you mean by this that reason provides a universal framework, which transcends our personal and cultural beliefs, and therefore is able to facilitate a dialogue about what is "truly good" or "really true" ? Or do you mean that reason may function as a conduit for us to access a 'divine' realm? Do you see reason as having limitations?

Guess I am thinking about this, so well summarized by @Wayfarer in another thread.

I’ve become very interested in (although not very knowledgeable about) the idea of the ‘divine intellect’ in Aristotle and Platonism generally. The basic thrust is that the power of reason is what distinguishes the human from other animals - hence man as the ‘rational animal’. It preserves the tripartite distinction in Plato's diaogues of the rational element of the soul as being the highest part. @wayfarer

Yes, hypothetically I acknowledge I am a very poor reader. — T Clark

I’m a poor reader too. I had a period of 25 years where I read a great deal. These days I lack curiosity.

In December I did read Erotic Vagrancy: Everything About Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor by Roger Lewis, described as a epic poem about vulgarity and old school fame culture. I was fascinated by Burton for a while and read everything on him. Lewis' book is an unorthodox, shamelessly personal, highly literate and quite bitchy biographical account of the doomed couple. It's not the book he thinks he wrote. We know this because he keeps telling us about his intentions. He says he doesn't want to judge the dysfunctional duo, but he can't help evaluating choices, actions and behaviors. The book is fun but lacks coherence and is somewhat repetitive. Lewis leaves us with a familiar albeit vividly realized lesson: fame can fuck you up.

Not only is it a personal reaction to which definition of the word "sublime" one accepts, but even if accepting one particular definition of the "sublime", it remains a personal reaction to one's experiences of the "sublime" as defined. — RussellA

Yes, and what I'm saying is I have not had that reaction. By any definition I've seen. :wink:

I feel like one could argue that both, in a way, could be transcendental, but also not. Not sure what you'd think of this separation of beauty into a subjectively and a more objectively based and shaped beauty and the thought of it being a transcendental. — Prometheus2

I definitely think one can argue this and many philosophers appear to do so (Roger Scruton seemed to be a particular enthusiast) - the transcendentals being truth, goodness and beauty.

While I don't argue that transcendentals do not exist, I don't believe the case has been made that they do exist. How would we demonstrate them? My own bias is that the idea of the divine (which can mean a plethora of things) has also not been demonstrated.

In the meantime, I see no reason to consider beauty to be more than a contingent factor of culture and experince. Certainly there is intersubjective agreement on the subject. Hardly surprising that cultures/communities share views on beauty. This all seems rich enough to me.

When a good aesthetic becomes a great aesthetic then it becomes sublime.

The aesthetic, being a certain combination of balance within variety of form can apply to all disciplines, whether painting, dance, music, architecture, as well as the design of cars. — RussellA

I don't really subscribe to this idea of the sublime (awe and wonder?). I'm not sure if I have experienced this.

I see things which have impact - and I greatly enjoy them (if that's the right verb). This is about as far as I'd go.

I may well quiver with pleasure when I see the facade of a particularly extravagant art deco building lit by moonlight, but my companion may look at the same edifice, shrug and say 'whatever'. The experince is not transcendental. It's a personal reaction.

Not sure if this is sarcastic, as if to imply everyone thinks they know right from wrong, yet no one does. — Hanover

No, I meant that you are one of the minority members here who believes he can identify a true morality.

I think it's clear I used the term metaphorically and hyperbolically, referencing those immoral things we wish to keep out of our society — Hanover

Like you above, I wasn't clear how to read you. Thanks for clarifying.

And, if I've got this right, that moralizing resulted in your seeing a Republican in your midst and so you called me Trumpesque. I'd have preferred Jefferson. — Hanover

Not really. I was wondering if you were a conservative. I imagine some conservatives are Democrat too. Your comments were a bit puzzling to me, that's all. I misread your metaphor for absolute certainty which seemed at odds with your general approach (such as I have understood it).

As for me, I don't believe I have a set of coherent beliefs. I just act on intuition. I guess mostly I am a typical product of time and place - atheistic, secular, and inclined towards relativism.

I am curious what others think and why. Especially those who are certain.

My first vote is to end the use of the term "demure." — Hanover

Noted. I wasn't aware it was being used much these days. I was reaching for a word along the lines of 'mild' and demure slipped out.

The OP implies an abandonment of unified values leads to fragmentation and alienation. — Hanover

Yes, which is a familiar trope doing the rounds and a bit Jordan Petersonesque. I'm not sure I agree, as stated. My memory before Fox News, identity policies and social media (which seems to be the putative causes of this) is that society was fragmented and alienated already. A lot of this can also sound like, 'Society was a lot better when women and minorities knew their place.'

I am still curious as to what you count as barbarian, even if the word is hyperbole.

That is, I don't fall back to my traditional systems because I can't take my neighbor's chaotic system, but I stand firmly in my traditional system because it's the correct way to think and to act. That is, by doing right, one ends up without the psychological stresses of those who do wrong. — Hanover

One of those rare people who 'knows' what is true and good. Would you also consider yourself a conservative (socially/politically/culturally)?

My metaphorical point here is that we ought re-erect those fences not just because we wish to find personal peace, but because those barbarians are evil, not just an inconvenience we don't know how to accomodate. — Hanover

Nice to see Chesterton's Fence getting an outing.

So essentially you believe in tanscendent notions of truth and good and you see these as stemming from God? What would count as an example of barbarianism?

I do think though we've reached a point that we might be finally be relenting from where we could not even question whether every personal expression is a good one. — Hanover

That would align with the Trump movement too, but I understand you may be ambivalent about that.

And don't misunderstand all this to mean I'm looking to force certain behaviors out of people. People get to celebrate their uniqueness and ultimately make their own decisions how they see fit, but they don't necessarily get to be saved from hearing the commentary regarding their behavior from their opponents. — Hanover

This sounds demure. Wouldn't we require barbarians to be vanquished?