Personally, it matters to me whether my own hand -- as a leader responsible for that community -- signs my community's death warrant regardless of what happens afterward. — BitconnectCarlos

Right, and I get that, and even agree with it. I just don't see what that has to do with theism or atheism; it seems like one could take that same principled stand either way. (Or fail to take that stand either way, for that matter).

(Should we perhaps be having this conversation about your conversion and the holocaust etc in a different thread? I feel bad cluttering up this thread with it, but I'm really curious to understand your thought process more, as it sounds like others are too).

Is that too much to ask for? — creativesoul

I figured throw a wide net and look for any common threads. It seems a few people changed their metaphysical frameworks. One nearly escaped nihilism. The open prompt was more of a challenge to the philosopher in general. If you haven't corrected a mistake in a while; then maybe there's one to look for.....I would be interested to participate in your revision.

I've always been interested in and good at science and math. When I was young - still in high school on into college, materialism and determinism seemed self-evident to me. After I dropped out of school, I didn't really think about it much for 20 or 30 years, even when I went back and got my engineering degree 15 years later.

When I started paying more attention to philosophy and the nature of reality, two things became clear to me. 1) the nature of reality is a metaphysical question - the various answers people have found are not true or false. They are useful or not useful in particular situations. 2) there are ways of seeing things that are more useful for me than a materialist perspective. The idea that there is an objective reality is one we can choose to follow or not without undermining the basis of science.

I think you have something there; the majority of responses have been over usefulness. Interesting.

After reading Popper's Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery trilogy two years ago my lifelong "orientation" of idealism changed to scientific realism.

:up:

It's funny I read Popper first(20 years ago), so most philosophy has seemed very strange as a result. As much as he seems to want to dismiss a lot of it, I believe his intention was to make it useful. He was also the inspiration for the thread if it wasn't obvious.

And yet do you not find he has a very keen respect for metaphysics?

I enjoy and agree with Popper's 3 worlds interpretation of metaphysics.

Yes, it definitely resonates with me also. I was referring also to his idea of the "metaphysical research program" which guides and shapes scientific discovery....

:cool:

I just don't see what that has to do with theism or atheism; it seems like one could take that same principled stand either way. (Or fail to take that stand either way, for that matter). — Pfhorrest

Yes, one could take the same principled stand either way. When I say that I made the move to theism, I'm not saying that others are rationally obliged to follow that path. I fully acknowledged that I have made a jump here and that theism (at least my own theism) cannot be completely rationally justified or proven. I'm fine having beliefs of that character.

I really think this situation exposes an interest conundrum in morality and game theory. From a game theory standpoint it makes sense to give in your oppressor's demands because your oppressor does have all the power and if you play nice he'll play nice which means you and your people live longer. This was absolutely one of the driving forces behind Nazi terror.

(Should we perhaps be having this conversation about your conversion and the holocaust etc in a different thread? I feel bad cluttering up this thread with it, but I'm really curious to understand your thought process more, as it sounds like others are too). — Pfhorrest

Oh thanks - if you want to start another thread I'll join in, but as far as I know I don't think the mods are going to mind this. I also wouldn't call it a conversion; in Judaism one never ceases being a Jew even if they're an atheist. I only said I was a theist though I don't one particular religion in mind.

but as far as I know I don't think the mods are going to mind this — BitconnectCarlos

The running debate is kind of keeping the thread alive, because most of the post don't necessitate a response. By all means keep rolling.

The fucker had read Hobbes after all ...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jun/24/lost-memoir-paints-revered-philosopher-john-locke-as-vain-lazy-and-pompous

The fucker had read Hobbes after all ... — 180 Proof

:smile:
Ah, philosophers, their egos and tantrums.
I have been turned on and off Plato so many times...
Now, it might be the turn of the Pragmatists.

Here's my latest at : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10814/is-deweys-pragmatism-misunderstood-/latest/comment

Wittgenstein's change of mind and heart.
How many of the 'Greats' - or anyone really - have admitted to 'Error Correction' and given thanks to someone for making them see differently ? Not many. But a few on this thread :cool:

I found the article linked to by @Shawn most informative, enjoyable and a bit tragic:
https://aeon.co/essays/what-is-truth-on-ramsey-wittgenstein-and-the-vienna-circle

...Wittgenstein was stung by this onslaught. In 1930, he wrote: ‘Ramsey’s mind repulsed me’; he had no capacity for ‘genuine reverence’; he had an ‘ugly mind’; and ‘his criticism didn’t help along but held back and sobered’. He told his friends that Ramsey was a ‘materialist’. Ramsey thought that Wittgenstein’s philosophy needed sobering up, and needed to pay attention to human beliefs, rather than independently existing propositions.

And here their debate breaks off, for Ramsey died on 19 January 1930, aged just 26. But years later, Wittgenstein would come around to Ramsey’s side.

When he did, he stopped saying nasty things about his friend, and instead thanked him in the preface to his second great treatise, Philosophical Investigations, which charted a very different course than the Tractatus:

since I began to occupy myself with philosophy again, 16 years ago, I could not but recognise grave mistakes in what I set out in that first book. I was helped to realise these mistakes – to a degree which I myself am hardly able to estimate – by the criticism which my ideas encountered from Frank Ramsey, with whom I discussed them in innumerable conversations during the last two years of his life.

Good for Wittgenstein - giving recognition to Ramsey's ideas. Pity about the nastiness that can develop between philosophers...but then again, good to see some emotion in all the dryness.

A ventriloquist gestures ... :wink:

Ooooh, I do like a man with brackets :cool:
Wittgenstein, here I come... :wink:

Metaphysics. Over a decade ago, influenced mostly by various thread discussions with Tobias, I'd reconsidered and thereby gradually translated my vacuous, scientistic, interpretation of 'positive metaphysics' (as useless as tits on a bull) into an intensively critical, 'negative metaphysics' (apophasis), which, among other things, has 'solved' the great jigsaw puzzle of my many disparate philosophical concerns. — 180 Proof

That is a nice compliment 180, thank! Indeed those discussions formed me too quite a bit. Under that influence and under the influence of people I met at the time I was here less I shifted perspective somewhat. I do not know if it is changing my mind, but now my central concern would be some ineluctable 'more' over and above what metaphysics has to offer. A fundamental impossibility of metaphysics or thought to reach. I think indeed you were the first one to confront me with that. It is similar to a Heideggerian 'zwischen' I guess or some other fundamental category of 'not that', a difference.

Also I focus much more strongly on the role of the body in metaphysics. I cannot be called a materialist since I still hold that the categories of thought are mental and that without this categorical ordering there 'is' nothing, but if we want to know how we think we cannot dispel the body, as that fundamentally does the talking. So I switched from 'logic' to phenomenology perhaps. that said, I am rusty nowadays, I have done more in law and in sociology which also shifted at least my approach. At the recent philosophy conference I was the only one with a methodology paragraph.... felt slightly over dressed. :D

:up: :cool:

What was Arendt's argument that such a person has moral agency? Because I don't see it. You take someone's freedom, then you give him two shitty choices and we are to condemn one of them because...?

I'm not aware of any explicit argument that Arendt makes but her tone is very clear in Eichmann in Jerusalem. I 100% understand that these men were in very difficult situations, and I also understand that the Holocaust was occurring regardless, but I do have to blame these men for assisting with the organization and deportation to what at the time was known to be certain death. I don't care how scared you are or how much you're trying to save the community in the long run -- there are just certain things you can't ever do, like rip a child from it's mothers arms to be shipped to its death (the fact that it was Jewish policemen often assisting with deportations is extremely disturbing.)

Even if the Nazis would have came in and done worse, you can't do evil yourself. There's an old rabbinic phrase that goes something like 'Let them kill you, but don't cross the line.'

It is possible that continuously giving in to the Devil was the "best" course of action here and maybe it extended people's survivability the longest, but I reject that world. I just can't bear it.

I think it's perfectly fine to come to that decision by yourself for yourself. What I reject is judging others for making different decisions in such situations. Here's the alternative view : I think you're weak that you're letting sentiment withhold you from making the decision that saves the most lives.

Both judgments are inappropriate in my view.

As an analogy, if there are 100 dishes and I offer you a choice between beef tacos and veal tacos and you choose beef, who decided what we had for dinner?

As an analogy, if there are 100 dishes and I offer you a choice between beef tacos and veal tacos and you choose beef, who decided what we had for dinner? — Benkei

:clap:

I think it's perfectly fine to come to that decision by yourself for yourself. What I reject is judging others for making different decisions in such situations. — Benkei

So here's where it gets interesting: Religious scripture here binds the Jewish people, and in this case the teaching is clear - one cannot deliver one's community to certain death. However, I suppose if the population in this case were not Jewish they'd be free to make that decision according to however that community decides (the choice would ideally be left to the community, not a council.) For the Jews, however, this is not a "you have your views and I have mine."

Here's the alternative view : I think you're weak that you're letting sentiment withhold you from making the decision that saves the most lives. — Benkei

Yep, this was the logic employed as Lodz i.e. saving lives is paramount, and difficult sacrifices need to be made to preserve the greater whole. I believe that to be true honest secular humanistic logic and it likely saves the most lives.

https://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205375.pdf

As an analogy, if there are 100 dishes and I offer you a choice between beef tacos and veal tacos and you choose beef, who decided what we had for dinner? — Benkei

I fully understand that their decisions were not free. As unfortunate as it is, this is one of those cases where the leaders need to sacrifice themselves for their community -- that is real leadership. It would have been extremely honorable and it reminds me of the King of Denmark when he told the Nazis upon occupation that if the yellow star were made mandatory for Jews in his country he'd be the first to wear it.