Comments

  • Is the Internet Beautiful?
    But even if we narrow it down and ask "is the web beautiful?", this similarly might have to be narrowed down further. The principle of the technology (HTTP, HTML, etc) and the flow of information are certainly impressive and wonderful, but what can we answer beyond that? It's a bit like the question "is music beautiful?" The alternative answers I might give are (a) yes, in principle and in general, the fact of music is a beautiful thing; and (b) it can be. Same goes for the web I suppose.
  • Is the Internet Beautiful?
    I don't think it's pedantic or too obvious to complain that there's no clear distinction in the OP (or in the discussion in general as far as I can see) between the internet and the web. Asking "is the internet beautiful" looks like a rather old-fashioned, anachronistic question, like asking "is transportation beautiful?" Are we talking roads, urban planning, aircraft design, or your new carbon road bike? The fact is that the internet has become almost as much a part of life as transportation. It's not some thing whose beauty can be evaluated as such.

    The internet is the computer network over which data is moved around in various ways. It's the servers and cables and home computers. Among the various ways there are of moving data around on the internet are email, file transfer, instant messaging, and the world wide web. The web is the collection of interconnected pages (some of which can be used to access other internet applications like email).
  • Scientific world view is not the only one ( my thoughts on it )
    ↪stoicHoneyBadger
    bye
  • The Meaning of "Woman"
    So guess the statistics they want to know is about how many don't think the sex at birth doesn't represent them, have had a sex change or something. — ssu

    But the question on the application, according to you, asks for the gender, not the sex.
  • A priori, self-evident, intuitive, obvious, and common sense knowledge
    ↪T Clark
    It seems self-evident to me that knowing things and asking "how do we know things?" are qualitatively different. The same goes for most philosophical questions. For instance, mathematicians need not concern themselves with whether numbers exist independently of the mind. The question is non-mathematical.

    Otherwise, I think this is the right track:

    I'm not even sure it makes sense to call it knowledge. — T Clark

    Grouping all of this stuff under the same term is surely just a historical artifact. Just say no to epistemology.
  • A priori, self-evident, intuitive, obvious, and common sense knowledge
    I've always thought of it as a process, like a checklist. It's true - check. It's justified - check. I believe it - check. Ding, ding, ding - It's knowledge. — T Clark

    Well, this is something like what we are doing in philosophy, rather than what people are doing when they come to know things. It's what some philosophers do when they're trying to work out what knowledge is. But the comment I referred to was this:

    I find it hard to understand how people can believe they know most of the things they do by justified true belief baloney or some other mechanical process. — T Clark

    This suggests that you understand the process to be one that's proposed to be undertaken by people generally, when they come to know things in everyday life, and not particularly as part of philosophical examination.
  • A priori, self-evident, intuitive, obvious, and common sense knowledge
    I find it hard to understand how people can believe they know most of the things they do by justified true belief baloney or some other mechanical process. — T Clark

    I’ve never seen justified true belief described as a process before. It’s just an observation (in the Theaetetus) of what we often mean when we speak of knowing, viz., something we believe, that is true and justified.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/14/russia-warns-of-nuclear-deployment-if-sweden-finland-join-nato

    Russia warns of nuclear deployment if Sweden, Finland join NATO     — Manuel

    This caught my attention, because in my line of work, to deploy is the same as to launch. But of course, that's not what it means.

    According to the Lithuanian defence minister, Russia already has nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad. In any case, I'm not sure how seriously we should take the words of Medvedev, who is widely regarded in Russia as a posturing buffoon with no real, independent power. On the other hand, his statements maybe often reflect Kremlin thinking, in that what he says is a simplification or exaggeration of what others around him have been saying. And I guess a military buildup on the Baltic wouldn't be a surprising response to Sweden and Finland joining NATO.
  • Demarcating theology, or, what not to post to Philosophy of Religion
    ↪praxis
    He also sired ten children in that period, so it wasn't all worms and pigeons.
  • Dealing With Rejection
    Rejection can suck, it can be embarrassing and its a blow to the ego, so that's something that should be taken into consideration if you're going to ask for something or try to get something. — HardWorker

    But it's already part of the equation. The reason we say "nothing ventured nothing gained" so much is that, normally, the psychological balance lies in favour of "nothing ventured nothing lost", because of our fear of rejection and humiliation, the fear of a loss of status in the eyes of our peers, and the fear of emotional pain. It's our default position. Most of us need an extra push to take a risk.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Changeling
    I keep wishing he'd post more about Tbilisi cos I'm thinking of going.
  • The books that everyone must read
    Titus Groan — T Clark

    Extra motivation to read. — Noble Dust

    A favourite of mine. If you like Titus Groan read the second book too. Gormenghast is just as good. In fact, the two books read as one.

    Regarding the OP, I used to think there were "books that everyone must read", but now I don't.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I think you built a Russophobic fantasy of ignorant subservient masses in your head and then attempted, and failed, to find academic studies proving it's true. — jamalrob

    To be more charitable @Christoffer, it might just be because the idea that "nasty politics is caused by bad education" (paraphrasing) is very dear to you, and you thought you could apply it to Russia just as you do to far-right European politics.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Christoffer
    Education in Russia has some big problems, primarily funding. As the OECD overview I linked to says, "spending per student is still low, about half of the OECD average". And as you say, many rural schools have closed. I don't know for sure, but this latter fact could be associated with rural depopulation (which is obviously not to let the state off the hook in any way, if levels of education are deteriorating).

    It's easy to miss the smaller communities/villages, rural and countryside areas of Russia when evaluating the educational system in Russia since most of what we see is the front view of the major cities and the illusion of national wealth that they demonstrate through that image. — Christoffer

    "As of January 1, 2021, 109.3 million inhabitants lived in Russian cities, opposed to 36.9 million people living in the countryside."
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1009893/russian-urban-and-rural-population-size/

    My point was about education, unbiased education as a foundation for people to be able to view their own nation's politics critically. If you get nothing but state-approved knowledge or live in a village where they shut down the school... what then? — Christoffer

    So your point now is not the quality of education as measured by the widely-accepted standards of authoritative organizations such as the OECD. Your point is that Russian education doesn't allow or encourage students to be critical of the government. That's probably true, but that's not what you said. I think you built a Russophobic fantasy of ignorant subservient masses in your head and then attempted, and failed, to find academic studies proving it's true.

    The best tertiary education is indeed concentrated in the major cities, and that's where all of the ministers and beaureacrats went to university. High quality education is no guarantee that students will be able to oppose the government. Those who are most loyal to the Russian government are among the best educated in the country. Your thinking on this is too simplistic.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    in Russia students of 15 years of age demonstrate a level of knowledge “below average”

    The paper you got this from is citing the Programme for International Student Assessment, which is an OECD study. The same study, for example, ranks Russia above Sweden in 2003–2015.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment#PISA_2018_ranking_summary

    In the latest data Russia is around 30th. China is first. If you're wondering how Russia can change its politics, education isn't the primary problem.

    See this PDF for an overall assessment of education in Russia: https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/EAG2019_CN_RUS.pdf

    So, maybe not "little to no education", but I wouldn't call any of this quality. — Christoffer

    I don't think you know what you're talking about.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    But a huge population in Russia has little to no education — Christoffer

    Are you serious?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    @Isaac @Christoffer

    I asked you nicely many pages ago to be civil or else ignore each other. It’s hard enough to maintain quality in this thread. When you don’t comply I’ll delete the offending posts.

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/675963

    If you have a problem with this, start a thread in the Feedback category. Don’t complain about it or attempt to justify yourself here. I’ll delete such posts.
  • What are you listening to right now?
    ↪Sir2u
    If only authentic earthquake damage were desirable among record collectors.
  • The three philosophies underlying most Cyberpunk characters and plot points
    ↪T Clark
    Yes, it was similar for me. The only difference is that when I read them again decades later, the ideas didn't have anything like the same impact, and likewise the unbeautiful writing was more noticeable. I remembered that I'd been particularly blown away by one scene, but didn't remember any of the details. I never found that scene in my later reading.
  • The three philosophies underlying most Cyberpunk characters and plot points
    ↪Bret Bernhoft
    I think it makes sense, given that science fiction, including cyberpunk, is primarily about ideas.
  • What are you listening to right now?
    ↪Sir2u
    :cool:

    I wish I still had my Zappa vinyl. Not that I have anything to play it on.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪baker
    Yeah, like I said: bollocks.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I can't access it. — baker

    Yeah I don't know what's up with their website. It's been intermittently inaccessible for the last few days. I just kept trying and eventually got in.
  • What are you listening to right now?
  • What are you listening to right now?
  • What are you listening to right now?
  • The three philosophies underlying most Cyberpunk characters and plot points
    I haven't read William Gibson or much else in the genre, so you should be highly sceptical about what I'm about to say.

    After engaging with as much Cyberpunk media as I could find, I have been researching the intellectual and spiritual infrastructure that makes up these stories. — Bret Bernhoft

    Those three philosophies are — Bret Bernhoft

    ideals/philosophies — Bret Bernhoft

    paradigms — Bret Bernhoft

    It's interesting that you choose not to go down the literary route, where you would identify themes rather than ideals, philosophies, and paradigms. It's as if your analysis is "in-universe". So, you're looking at the stories from the point of view of the protagonists, or in terms of their motivations, rather than analyzing the stories as stories. This means that "whether any given force ... is working to support or destroy these ideals/philosophies" appears to be something merely incidental, something that gets in the way of the philosophies, but if you were analyzing the stories as works of fiction, in terms of themes, you would identify the theme of conflict as central--particularly between those who are denied cognitive liberty (etc) on one side, and high-tech capitalism, the faceless corporations, or whatever it is, on the other side.

    Having said that, the "paradigms" or "philosophies" look good, and could stand as literary themes themselves.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪frank
    It's why there are eagles on the coat of arms of Russia.

    As to what the prevaling myth of Russian exceptionalism is, I don't have any scholarly knowledge about it, I just sense the self-importance and absolute patriotism, which strikes a disaffected Brit as strange. I do know that the myth popularized by Dostoevsky of the special Russian soul is still popular. My mother-in-law told me I'd never really understand Chekhov because I'm not Russian. I say bollocks to that (I didn't say that at the time).
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪frank
    Byzantium and Rome are much bigger in the Russian historical consciousness than you might think. The idea that Russia, particularly Moscow, is the successor of Rome, via Byzantium, has appeared now and then in Russian culture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow,_third_Rome

    It was especially popular when Russia was forming an empire, I think. It's quite significant. And I wouldn't be surprised if it had some currency today, with the revival of the church, but I'm not sure.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪frank
    I see. Yes, there's some relationship there, in the Russian context, but I was just talking from personal experience about everyday people in everyday settings.

    See, if you persist in your terse, cryptic style of posting rather than making clear and expansive arguments, you'll continue to confuse me. You still haven't told me which Western values caused the Russians to go a-conquering.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Notice how Marxists think of themselves as special — frank

    Does that apply to everyone who thinks they have a good idea when that idea is not held by everyone? Need I mention the examples of the suffragettes, the Chartists, the 1790s Haitian revolutionaries, etc?

    EDIT: I'm actually not sure why you brought up Marxists. The Soviet Union? When I talked about Russian exceptionalism I didn't have the Marxists in mind at all. Most of the Old Bolsheviks were internationalists opposed to all Russian chauvinism.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Olivier5
    Nice to see you make a post I approve of :smile:
  • Ukraine Crisis
    One thing I kept coming back to with Russia was the way it's surprisingly similar to the US. They both have a strong apocalyptic streaks and that sometimes influences events. — frank

    I keep coming back to that as well. Not particularly the apocalyptic streak, which I haven't thought about, but in other ways there are very strong similarities. It's mainly the exceptionalism, I think, and the assumption that they lead the world or should be doing so. (Obviously this is a gross generalization)
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I meant that their greatest imperialistic efforts look more like an injection of western values than something home grown. Is that wrong? — frank

    Peter and Catherine were famously influenced by Western Europe, and to the extent that their territorial expansion sought a status for Russia equal to the Western European powers, then I suppose you could say that Russian imperialism in the 17th and 18th centuries was influenced by Western values. But access to warm water and securing the mountainous bulwark of the Caucasus (although I think the latter was only completed in the 19th century, if it ever really was) seem more basic than that, and could be described as part of their competition with the West, as well as with other powers like the Ottoman Empire, rather than being driven by the West's values. In any case their embrace of Western values only went so far: Catherine resisted reforms as much as she enacted them, and doubled down on absolutism. But maybe you can explain which values you mean. So far you haven't really said.

    This might be unfair, but I have a sneaking suspicion that your idea amounts to a kind of orientalism, sometimes found in popular English histories of Russia.

    But I guess we're veering off topic.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    That better? — Isaac
    :up:
  • Ukraine Crisis
    You need to read some good histories. Some aspects of Russian literature, music, and visual art require understanding the smoldering identity crisis that plagues the Russian culture. — frank

    Thanks, I have read some good histories and understand the popular concept of the Russian identity crisis. I just didn't know what you meant when you said that "every time Russia has become imperialistic, it was because of European influence". You made an obscure or ambiguous comment, and yet you go on to assume, because I asked you what you meant, that you know more than me about Russian history. My knowledge of it might not be great, but I'm guessing it's at least as good as yours.

    I don't see how, for example, Ivan 4's establishment of a tsarist empire can be put down to "European influence" any more than it can be put down to the existence of the successor states of the Golden Horde. But if you just mean that Russian imperialism has always taken place partly against and in the context of the actions of countries and empires to the West of Russia, then yes, of course--and later, against European empires competing for control in Asia (the Great Game).
  • Ukraine Crisis
    If you want to have your posts go uncontested write a fucking blog, this is a discussion forum, expect to have your comments challenged. — Isaac

    This is what I mean, get lost. — Christoffer

    Please either be civil to each other or ignore each other.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I think every time Russia has become imperialistic, it was because of European influence. — frank

    I don't know if this fits with my knowledge of Russian history. But then, my knowledge of Russian history isn't great. How do you mean? Peter the Great?

    It's a little counter to its basic nature to have to go out and conquer someone else, as you said, because of geography. — frank

    I would think it's precisely because of its geography that its imperialism, defensive though it might significantly have been, has very much been part of its basic nature. Having said that, I don't know if it's useful to talk of a basic nature.

    Anyway, although it hasn't had to sail around the world to do its conquering, and hasn't done it as much as some other European countries, even so, in its region it's done plenty of it, otherwise it would still be the land- and ice-locked Grand Duchy of Moscow.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I also read Russian comments to the effect that return to empire isn't possible in the short term, but they seemed to have the impression that that's Putin's goal. Do you think they're wrong about that? — frank

    Yes and no. I think he wants a sphere of influence, and that to me can be described as imperialist, rather in the same sense as the USA has been accused of being imperialist despite their not having an empire as such. But bringing some kind of Russian empire back to formal existence is likely not a goal. Such geopolitical formations are an anachronism, too difficult to maintain in the modern world, and could not be tolerated internationally. As it happens I also suspect it's wrong to see the Soviet Union as merely another Russian empire, a continuation of the actual Russian Empire just with a different flag and ideology, even though the Soviet Union was obviously dominated by Russia. I'd probably have to do some reading to make that argument though.

    I haven't come to a firm conclusion on the subject. Russian imperialism was always significantly defensive, due to geography (I feel I have to point out that this is a consensus among historians and not any kind of justification), and that is certainly a big factor in what is happening now. And then there's Putin's speeches denying the separate nationhood of the Ukrainians, which I think express his actual beliefs. So you could certainly see this war as a continuation of Russian imperialism.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Wayfarer
    :cool:
Home » Jamal