↪Joshs I disagree with everything you've written there, or at least find it all irrelevant to the question — Janus
I say that blame is not any more rationally justifiable in cases where harm is caused by humans than it is in cases where harm is caused by other animals or natural events. — Janus
“Anger, for example, is not just a burst of venom, and it is not as such sinful, nor is it necessarily a “negative” emotion. It can be “righteous,” and it can sometimes be right.”
…we have strictures against killing innocent people; and we have strictures prescribing equal opportunity. These principles are grounded in reason and subject to rational debate. . But justice also requires passion. We don't coolly tabulate inequities—we feel outraged or indignant when they are discovered. Such angry feelings are essential; without anger, we would not be motivated to act....Rage can misdirect us when it comes unyoked from good reasoning, but together they are a potent pair. Reason is the rudder; rage propels us forward.
“Anger can be unjustified, to be sure, and in that case it enacts a fundamentally distorted portrayal of the other. But anger can also be justified, and in that case it can be the only frame of mind in which the vicious and hateful reality of the other is truly recognized.”
“fresh, expansive, active, constructive, and varies with changes in the situation”. “Anger may help handle the situation because it may make the other change or back away. Anger can also help the situation because it may break it entirely and thus give you new circumstances.” “ Anger is healthy, while resentment and hate are detrimental to the organism.“
I happen to agree with you on that, but just to make sure we’re on the same page, do think that any of the following cognitive assessments can be rationally justified, and if so , which ones and on what rational basis? — Joshs
False. I went through this giving examples of both conceptually. You are just wrong. A person claiming bare that someone promised them something isn't even a legal consideration. It's a nothing. A nonsense. It isn't going to even get you listened to by the judiciary in any form, unless you have some evidence. Even that, usually, needs leave to be adduced. — AmadeusD
If you can't prove it in court, it probably does. If there is literally no record of your marriage, you are not married. That's how a legal obligation works. If you're conflating moral obligations with legal ones, that's a bit rich. — AmadeusD
You could have dispensed with your silly condescending tone, but here we go...You could have stopped here, acknowledged you have defeated your own point, and moved on. But here we go... — AmadeusD
Why you are mentioning ontological positions is beyond me so I'm just going to ignore that dumbass conclusion. — AmadeusD
It literally renders them non-existent. If you have a false memory of making a promise, does it exist? No. You can't prove it. You have absolutely nothing but your memory to rely on. THe promise doesn't exist. Your apparent attachment to it does. — AmadeusD
Say a nuclear weapon wipes out all the registries, then there is no evidence of my marriage anymore, but I am still married. I still have the legal obligation to care for my partner. There is just no evidence for the marriage and if I walk away from my obligation it cannot be enforced by a court. That though does not make the obligation somehow disappear, or the marriage somehow annulled. — Tobias
As you previously stated, Tobias, it depends on the legislation we are taking into account, but since you and I live under the "umbrella" of the European Union, there is a basic principle: the company does not exist if it is not recorded. If the company is not recorded, it becomes irregular and the stakeholders respond with their goods and not with the company's goods. I mean, without a registration, the company lacks of "affectio societatis" — javi2541997
It is obvious that you still have some obligations to your spouse, but your marriage becomes "insufficient" as the legal codes of my country says. Specifically, the 61st of the Spanish Civil Code says: For the acknowledgment of the marriage it ought to be recorded in the civil registry.
If it is not registered, or you lack some certificate, you can lose some advantages. For example, in terms of taxes, it cannot be proven you are a family unit. In terms of perceiving a pension from the state, there could be problems of evidence that marriage existed, etc.
With the aim of preventing unfair results, the Civil Code provides basic rights and principles between spouses, but these are very basic. — javi2541997
Article 1:149 of the Dutch civil code mentions that a marriage can be dissolved on a number of grounds. These grounds are summed up limitatively which means that only those grounds have legal force. The eradication of a registry is not among them. Therefore I can only conclude that under Dutch law the marriage is not dissolved. — Tobias
Interestingly perhaps under Dutch law we know the figure of the 'natural obligation'. That is an obligation that cannot be enforced but is still there. — Tobias
The most prominent example of it is when a thief becomes the owner of a certain good due to the statute of limitation. Since he became owner the original owner cannot revindicate his or her property. Yet, the thief/owner is still under a natural obligation to return the good to the person he/ she stole it from. — Tobias
No, that is not how legal obligation works. You confuse obligations with rules of evidence. If I am married legally and the marriage is not legally dissolved I am simply married — Tobias
That though does not make the obligation somehow disappear, or the marriage somehow annulled. — Tobias
You could have dispensed with your silly condescending tone, but here we go... — Tobias
It is indeed beyond you but that is not really my problem. — Tobias
No, it If I remembered making a promise but I did not make a promise, there is no promise. — Tobias
Yes. That's literally what it would mean. — AmadeusD
here is no marriage to be annulled in that scenario — AmadeusD
The same way if your bank loses its server, you have no money. — AmadeusD
You are very wrong, and adamant about it — AmadeusD
It's not easy to pretend that's a reasonable position to take. — AmadeusD
Your inconsistency is becoming funny — AmadeusD
that's going to make me mean — AmadeusD
Just you saying so does not make it so. — Tobias
Say a nuclear weapon wipes out all the registries, then there is no evidence of my marriage anymore, but I am still married. I still have the legal obligation to care for my partner. There is just no evidence for the marriage and if I walk away from my obligation it cannot be enforced by a court. That though does not make the obligation somehow disappear, or the marriage somehow annulled. — Tobias
I disagree; blame is attendant upon the idea that the person really could have done otherwise; it is based on a libertarian notion of free will which is entrenched in the western psyche — Janus
We get angry and blame when we believe we can get that person ‘unstuck’ — Joshs
I disagree; blame is attendant upon the idea that the person really could have done otherwise; it is based on a libertarian notion of free will which is entrenched in the western psyche
— Janus
We get angry and blame when we believe we can get that person ‘unstuck’
— Joshs
I'd say Janus is clearly correct here, and the key is not some vague notion of libertarian free will, but rather his condition "that the person really could have done otherwise." Joshs needs to put "blame" in scare-quotes, for by 'blame' he seems to mean nothing more than negative conditioning — Leontiskos
“In some respects validation in personal construct theory takes the place of reinforcement, although it is a construct of quite a different order, Validation is the relationship one senses between anticipation and realization, whereas in conventional theory reinforcement is a value property attributed to an event… When we place a construction of our own upon a situation, and then pursue its
implications to the point of expecting something to happen, we issue a little invitation to nature to intervene in our personal experience. Even when events are reconciled with a construction, we cannot be sure that they have proved it true. There are always other constructions, and there is the lurking likelihood that some of them will turn out to be better. The best we can ever do is project our anticipations with frank uncertainty and observe the outcomes in terms in which we have a bit more confidence. But neither anticipation nor outcome is ever a matter of absolute certainty from the dark in which we mortals crouch.
anger has a great deal to do with blame, but it is simply false to claim that we get angry when we think we can get a person unstuck. We get angry with someone when they have done something wrong, and our anger is supposed to motivate them to set it right. If someone is "stuck" but is not to blame for anything then we do not get angry with them. — Leontiskos
No, the point I was making is that believers in reductive determinism like Sapolski are not some strange anomaly within the history of philosophy, — Joshs
That was the point I was making. The other’s ‘stuckness’ only provokes our anger when it involves their deliberate, intentional choice... — Joshs
I was just making a joke. Amadeus often seems to be under the impression that, "His saying so makes it so." — Leontiskos
What if the nuclear weapon wipes out the entire nation and the legal order. Would you still be legally married? Or would the legality of the marriage fall away and it become a purely natural marriage? — Leontiskos
g. The other’s ‘stuckness’ only provokes our anger when it involves their deliberate, intentional choice...
— Joshs
Sure, but I am not sure that you are appreciating the relation of choice to free will. To deny the ability to do otherwise is to deny choice and fault, and the onus is on you to show how a deterministic paradigm could provide for the ability to do otherwise. — Leontiskos
I’m all for free will. My claims about determinism weren’t an attempt to privilege them over freedom-based positions, but to show that they share a limitation with many such approaches. — Joshs
What most free will based perspectives have in common with deterministic ones is making fault and blame a necessary consequence of choice and freedom — Joshs
I believe we are free, within the looose constraints set by our contingent schemes of understanding, to reconstrue the meaning of events. Determinations of culpability, fault and blame tend to prematurely end that process of re-interpretation and questioning. — Joshs
No. The non existence of registries is not among the limititative grounds for annulment of marriages under Dutch law. — Tobias
There is my GF and I were married on the 10 of the 12th, 1998. It has not been disbanded. I just have no means of proving it. — Tobias
That might be because the money stopped existing. The marriage did not stop existing. The wedding ring may well be lost in that catastrophe as well, but so what? — Tobias
You are not mean, just a bully and a silly one. — Tobias
Now Amadeus seems to state that when the promise cannot be proven it is somehow not there. — Tobias
I was actually lying. I was not — Tobias
By definition we were married, as it is given in the facts of the case. The court has established the facts wrongly, based on of knowledge and on the rule of evidence. — Tobias
If there is no evidence you are married, the marriage doesn't exist. — AmadeusD
I think that claim is wrong. We do not require evidence for existence. — Tobias
I find the way you write offensive, facetious and displaying an arrogance which is I think both unnecessary and baseless — Tobias
Then you're flat-out wrong because the second part is false. — AmadeusD
If I promise my brother I will return a book to him I borrowed from him, I made that promise, no matter whether he can prove it in court or not. — Tobias
I don't care. You're stubborn in your incoherence so this is par for the course. — AmadeusD
If there is no evidence you are married, the marriage doesn't exist. — AmadeusD
And on what metaphysical theory are you basing that assertion? — Tobias
For example. I tell you there is a little man on the stairs, but this doesn't show up in any facts of the world. He's invisible and he leaves no trace anywhere. You can safely assert that the man doesn't exist. The same would be true for promises and marriages. — frank
I can safely assert it and I would probably be believed by all. However, if there really was such a man, I would still be wrong. He did exist, he just didn't leave a trace. You who told me there was such a man, were right, I was wrong. You won't be believed though, however, that is sad, as you were right all along. The same holds for promises and marriages. — Tobias
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.