I note you carefully steered clear of my last question. How are you defining "just"?

So unless you are simply happy to keep chanting propaganda slogans, can you supply the argument that backs up this opinion.

Why is this something you merely say rather than something I ought to believe?

I’m just telling you what I believe, not what you ought to believe. What do you believe?

Altering one's beliefs is not sufficient for changing one's behaviour, as my examples demonstrate. There is the further matter of one's disposition and will power. If an individual does not already have the moral disposition which allows one to adhere firmly to one's beliefs, and not give in to temptation, then altering one's beliefs is an ineffective procedure. The person would just become more and more hypocritical, believing that resisting certain actions is the good and right thing to do, but still lacking the necessary will power to abstain.

Sure, one must change his conduct to align with his morality. If one has difficulty doing so he has to try harder. If he doesn’t, then yes he becomes a hypocrite. Will power is often difficult to muster, especially for people who do not believe in it.

Do you agree that things were happening, things were moving, prior in time to the existence of living beings capable of making decisions. If so, then you ought to see that it is not necessary for a "decision" to be made in order for something to move from one place to another.

I never said it is necessary for a decision to be made in order for something to move from one place to another. I was just saying that you or I can decide to move something from one place to another, altering our situation, changing the world.

I’m just telling you what I believe — NOS4A2

But beliefs without a rational basis apparently. Well that was already clear. :up:

You were arguing that a person moving an object in their room was actually time affecting matter and space (determinism). — Manbabyzeus

No, what I said is that time is a necessary condition for moving an object. A person cannot move an object unless time passes. Because of this fact, there are those, (determinists), who argue that it is just the passing of time which necessitates that the object moves, not a person's will.

You used this to say that a person can’t be sure if they have the agency to proactively change their given situation. — Manbabyzeus

Right, the determinist argument can be convincing, but whether it is believable or not depends on one's perspective as to what the passing of time actually is.

Then you said a person actually does have at least some control over certain things and can actually affect their situation. — Manbabyzeus

Yes, the way I understand the passing of time, this is what I believe is the case, a person has some control over some things..

But If determinism is a reality, there is no free will. It’s not that it’s a grey area, it’s one or the other, determinism simply can’t exist with free actors. — Manbabyzeus

But determinism is only true if the passing of time is as the determinist believes it is. However, regardless of what one believes about what the passing of time really is, the passing of time is still a necessary condition for a person to move an object. And, it is obviously not something which the human will has control over. So no matter how free my will is, time still passes, and I cannot change that. Furthermore, there are many things which happen as time passes which I have not the capacity to change.

So there's really no question of either determinism or not determinism, only a question of which things I can and cannot change. The determinist argument is just an invalid conclusion derived from the apprehension that some things cannot be changed. In relation to the question of which things can and cannot be changed, many of these things I might not be sure about. You can call this a grey area if you like.

Do you mean things like weathering, chemical reactions, momentum? Or do you mean the framework of the human mind, as being the factor that’s determined? I fell like all animals already intuitively do this. — Manbabyzeus

Yes, momentum might be an applicable term. When something has momentum, it tends to continue in the way it has been, such is the nature of inertia as well. So a massive object like the earth moving, is determined by the passing of time, to keep moving in the same way. But this is not to say that all things with mass, inertia, or momentum, are determined. My body has mass, and momentum, but I believe that my free will has the capacity to alter that momentum. Therefore, I believe that not all things with momentum are necessarily determined. It appears to me, that larger things, and things with more momentum are more difficult for the human will to interfere with.

Sure, one must change his conduct to align with his morality. If one has difficulty doing so he has to try harder. If he doesn’t, then yes he becomes a hypocrite. Will power is often difficult to muster, especially for people who do not believe in it. — NOS4A2

Trying harder is not necessarily the answer. Often this just leads to frustration and the person might become of a worse moral disposition than before. There are many factors involved with trying to change one's morality, and learning to have realistic goals might be one of the first. However, inspiration (and this is directly related to will power), might be the most important of all. As you say, some do not even believe in will power. If a person doesn't believe in will power, how could one even be inspired to try to change one's morality? So the question here might be what provides the prerequisite inspiration for a person to actually change one's morality. It's easy for a person to look at oneself and say I have some bad habits, I should get rid of these, but what inspires a person to actually carry out the work required to drop those habits. It's not like the person gets paid for that work, so the motivation must come from something else.

I was just saying that you or I can decide to move something from one place to another, altering our situation, changing the world. — NOS4A2

Yes, and I was pointing out, that just because a person decides to move something from one place to another, this does not mean that the person can actually do it. That's the problem with your view of morality. You seem to think that a person can just pick and choose one's morality, as if one's current moral disposition has no bearing on what type of moral principles the person has the capacity to uphold.

They all think they are moral ubermensch capable of lifting themselves up by their bootstrap regardless of whatever circumstances they find themselves in. At the same time foreigners are to blame because "dey touk our jabs!", liberals are to blame for every social ill and meanwhile they're totally blind to the fact its society and its welfare components that create the choices and freedom to choose among them instead of having to spend all our time just surviving. — Benkei

Someone recently mentioned the inconvenient facts regarding the actual public policies being implemented during those times so long ago still yearned for to this day. These horribly inconvenient actions that resulted in the very time periods championed by those who either have no fucking clue what it took to get there... hence what it takes to get there again, or they are deliberately perpetuating fraud against the American people.

Many, perhaps most, of those who want to make America great again want us all to return to times like they were between WWII and Nixon. Those were the times that socialist policies provided.

Great for your average white folk.

“No, what I said is that time is a necessary condition for moving an object. A person cannot move an object unless time passes.”

“However, regardless of what one believes about what the passing of time really is, the passing of time is still a necessary condition for a person to move an object. And, it is obviously not something which the human will has control over. So no matter how free my will is, time still passes, and I cannot change that.”

“ So a massive object like the earth moving, is determined by the passing of time, to keep moving in the same way. But this is not to say that all things with mass, inertia, or momentum, are determined. My body has mass, and momentum, but I believe that my free will has the capacity to alter that momentum.”


That’s all fine and good, but I understand determinism as an exercise on the nature of causality, (and yeah I see how time/causality could be seen as splitting hairs) but space/time acts more as an arena for causality to operate. I don’t see much of a real world application for determinism other than a prerequisite for an expanding and contracting universe. It’s only use in philosophy, in my view, is to create self fulfilling proficiencies like “It doesn’t matter what I do, everything’s already determined”. Your use of it here obscures your point and made it hard for me to realize what you were actually saying. So yeah there are things in existence that are constants like time/space, weak/strong nuclear force, and last but not least a mothers love. But If you’re trying to separate these uncontrollable constants from controllable entropy in order to find true existence, it’s a noble goal but in truth we live separate conceptually but not actually from these things. If you set the separation from the universal constants aside your essentially describing stoicism. I also think pondering time excessively is not only bad for your mental health but also an exercise in futility.

Trying harder is not necessarily the answer. Often this just leads to frustration and the person might become of a worse moral disposition than before. There are many factors involved with trying to change one's morality, and learning to have realistic goals might be one of the first. However, inspiration (and this is directly related to will power), might be the most important of all. As you say, some do not even believe in will power. If a person doesn't believe in will power, how could one even be inspired to try to change one's morality? So the question here might be what provides the prerequisite inspiration for a person to actually change one's morality. It's easy for a person to look at oneself and say I have some bad habits, I should get rid of these, but what inspires a person to actually carry out the work required to drop those habits. It's not like the person gets paid for that work, so the motivation must come from something else.

I really like your thinking here. Nicely said. I will just say, though, that inspiration is followed by a choice, some sort of follow-through, which begins and ends in the individual. Man becomes inspired. He is the genesis of his inspiration, and all subsequent follow-through. He is not the passive object and I cannot speak about him as such.

Yes, and I was pointing out, that just because a person decides to move something from one place to another, this does not mean that the person can actually do it. That's the problem with your view of morality. You seem to think that a person can just pick and choose one's morality, as if one's current moral disposition has no bearing on what type of moral principles the person has the capacity to uphold.

I don’t believe a person just picks and chooses a morality, as if from a menu, just that he can come to believe in certain moral principles by his own volition, by weighing the pros, the cons, the value and justice of certain moral principles, and that the sum of his moral principles can be called a “morality”. I would say this is a choice, a matter of choosing.

Kamala Harris' speech at the DNC offers a glimpse of hope that some of the unraveling will be mended soon...

That was a brilliantly crafted speech. She exuded sincerity, genuine goodwill, and exhibited fierce determination against unjust unlawful discrimination. She also knows quite a bit about what is required to realize the necessary changes(equal treatment under the law). That is(will be) the first female president of the United States of America!

But If you’re trying to separate these uncontrollable constants from controllable entropy in order to find true existence, it’s a noble goal but in truth we live separate conceptually but not actually from these things. — Manbabyzeus

The point was that making such a distinction is necessary in order to distinguish between what is possible and what is impossible. Otherwise you'll be insisting like NOS4A2 seemed to assert, to be able to do the impossible, and persistently trying harder when your attempts to do the impossible fail. This is what NOS suggested one ought to do, and contrary to what Nos seems to think, this is not necessarily good for one's moral character.

If you set the separation from the universal constants aside your essentially describing stoicism. I also think pondering time excessively is not only bad for your mental health but also an exercise in futility. — Manbabyzeus

This is a perfect example. If it is impossible to understand the nature of time, then pondering time excessively is an exercise in futility, (just like NOS4A2's, choosing one's own morality, if it's impossible to do so), and this would be bad for one's mental health.

I really like your thinking here. Nicely said. I will just say, though, that inspiration is followed by a choice, some sort of follow-through, which begins and ends in the individual. Man becomes inspired. He is the genesis of his inspiration, and all subsequent follow-through. He is not the passive object and I cannot speak about him as such. — NOS4A2

I agree that the human being is the active agent, and the source of action is within, and this justifies the notion of "free" will as the source of activity. However, to maintain the notion of "free" here, we must allow a separation between that which inspires the person to act, and that which causes the person to act. Otherwise the human being would be constantly acting according to ones inspirations, directly, and there would be no capacity to choose. So there are two distinct features here which must be accounted for. One is being an active agent, and the other is being able to choose one's actions. The latter is more difficult to understand because it is a matter of preventing oneself from acting on impulse, in order to choose the best course of action, and this is will power. So the free will is only free by means of preventing action, such that a desired action can be chosen. This is how the agent is acting rather than reacting.

The problem is to place both of these features as completely within the individual, because they are incompatible. One is active the other a negation of activity. If the active principle is within, then the person is active, and cannot have the capacity to prevent oneself from acting. If the principle of prevention or negation is within the individual, then the source of action must be exterior, allowing the person to choose the appropriate source of activity (efficient causes) deemed necessary toward a desired goal.

For the sake of discussion, let's suppose that the person, following some mystical discipline or something like that, might come to understand a unity of both, within oneself. Within oneself there is some sort of unity between activity and its negation. Where do you think "inspiration" would fit within this scheme? I would think that inspiration might very well be that unity itself. If the person has the capacity to direct all of one's energy towards activities required for a desired goal, and at the same time prevent all unwanted activity, as unproductive toward that goal, then we can say that the person is ambitious and inspired, focusing one's attention toward that goal..

Now we come to morality. How can we judge this goal itself, which the ambitious, or inspired person holds, as good or bad? I'm sure you see what I mean. A person might just as well be inspired toward doing bad as toward doing good. Of course this ambitious person thinks the goal is a good goal, and so is inspired toward that goal, but how are we going to judge whether it really is a good goal or not? The person has the complete disposition required to be a very inspired actor, and we might believe that this is very good, but how might the person know how to discern the good goal from the bad goal? If the goal is really a bad goal, then being very inspired and motivated toward that goal is not a good thing.

I don’t believe a person just picks and chooses a morality, as if from a menu, just that he can come to believe in certain moral principles by his own volition, by weighing the pros, the cons, the value and justice of certain moral principles, and that the sum of his moral principles can be called a “morality”. I would say this is a choice, a matter of choosing. — NOS4A2

OK, how do you think that a person would make this choice? Suppose that we have a very ambitious person who wants to act, and make a difference in the world. That person is presented with many different moral principles, some inconsistent, incompatible, and even contradicting each other. The person is very conscientious, and wants to be guided only by the highest of moral principles. Where would the person turn to find the highest moral principles, to ensure that one's acting in the world was in fact good, and not really bad actions being mistaken for good?

The Democrats appear to have adopted much of Sander's rhetoric; I doubt it will translate into actual policy. But ever hopeful.

In China, folk wear face masks to protect others.

In 'merica, folk wear face masks to protect themselves.

The Democrats appear to have adopted much of Sander's rhetoric; I doubt it will translate into actual policy. But ever hopeful. — Banno

If history is any indication, with these two, the necessary changes will likely not be made any time soon. However, Those two are much closer to making those changes than Trump actually is. Trump has usurped the 'America first' idea, but unfortunately it is accompanied by xenophobia, which means white America first, and fuck everyone else(historical allies besides the UK) at the same time. That pains me, because I fear that the idea itself will continue to be correlated to Trump and xenophobia.

Trump is not America First; he's Me First.

No argument here...

I did say "usurped" the idea. He mouthes the words.

In China, folk wear face masks to protect others.

In 'merica, folk wear face masks to protect themselves. — Banno

Telling isn't it?

The United States is no longer a leader among nations. — Banno

It's in decline, but it's still a "great power" which just means it's capable of exerting global influence. Its military and economy give it that position.

What's unclear is whether China has now achieved great power status. A sign of that would be the onset of cold war, which is actually a source of global stability.

What's unclear is whether China has now achieved great power status. A sign of that would be the onset of cold war, which is actually a source of global stability. — frank

China has achieved very long ago great power status as we give great power status to Russia, France and the UK too.

What they will never have is similar cultural dominance as the US has. We all speak English: if I would communicate with an African or an Asian, I would likely use English (as I'm not a French speaker, and many of them aren't also).

Don't think that some power will replace the US. After the US there is only a void in it's place.

And that void can surely happen.

China has achieved very long ago great power status as we give great power status to Russia, France and the UK too. — ssu

Russia maybe, due to its military. France and the UK are regional powers, neither is global at present. No academic says China became a great power "long ago."

Don't think that some power will replace the US. After the US there is only a void in it's place.

And that void can surely happen. — ssu

More likely China and the US will represent a bipolar power structure in the years to come.

. France and the UK are regional powers, neither is global at present. — frank

Only Superpowers were truly global in their reach as many great powers haven't been even in their hey day truly global (think about Japan, Austro-Hungarian empire or the Ottoman Empire etc.). A regional power would be a country like India, South Africa or Germany as you won't find them operating by their own in other continents. What especially is lacking is the will to do that, which is crucial: A great power nation thinks it's a great power... at least some people in their governments do.

And I think a lot of Africans would disagree with you, especially with the case of France. It still has bases around the World, but especially in Africa. France as the former colonial power basically never left and is very much part of the politics in it's former colonies.

After decolonisation, France established formal defence agreements with many francophone countries in sub-Saharan Africa. These arrangements allowed France to establish itself as a guarantor of stability and hegemony in the region. France adopted an interventionist policy in Africa, resulting in 122 military interventions that averaged once a year from 1960 to the mid-1990s.

And that hasn't stopped in this Century as the war in Mali and the intervention in Ivory Coast (among others) has shown. France has spread it's forces over the Sahel and at present has a military bases in these African countries:



And the UK? Well, it does have now two fancy new aircraft carriers each capable of operating 72 aircraft as it learned after the Falklands war that scrapping your flat top carriers and hunting soviet subs isn't the only thing to do with your NATO navy. Last intervention on it's own the UK did was I guess to Sierra Leone in 2000, which actually was rather successful as it stopped the civil war there.

(They even have gotten finally the F-35s into trials aboard their carriers!)

What especially is lacking is the will to do that, which is crucial: A great power nation thinks it's a great power... at least some people in their governments do. — ssu

I think a political constructivist says there are no great powers but thinking makes them so.

The neorealist sets the scene with the pure anarchy of our little godless planet and predicts the circumstances in which push will come to shove.

I dont think constructivism can make predictions very well. It always has us stuck in our givens.

Well, old school gun boat diplomacy is something that the US can do.

But that doesn't mean the World has gotten less interventionist. In fact, now it's just an international effort through vehicles like NATO and the UN. A power like Germany is totally incapable of deploying it's troops outside it's border (perhaps only into it's neighbors), but is very active all around the World in various operations.

Or in the African example, groups of nations have put their resources together like the ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) has formed the ECOMOG (Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group) which has sent forces to Liberia, Sierra Leona and Guinea-Bissau. Nigeria is the largest participant (being the local regional power), so the idea that only European great powers can play "the grand chessboard" is incorrect. And when you think about the African nations involved in the First and Second Congolese Civil War... so-called imperialism isn't anymore only a thing of the West.

(Africans can do it themselves!)

:up: I think your view is in line with political constructivism, which is cool.