:up:

Using [ code ] means you can write it in a monospace text editor and paste it straight in:

It was me. It's possible I was a little hasty in moving it, because I didn't really look at the responses, basing my decision mainly on the OP. But still, I don't think it's a philosophical question so I'm not too regretful about my decision.

@Noble Dust

I remember when I first heard that song on Obscured by Clouds, thinking, ah, it's nice to get a bit of light relief; a jaunty whimsical reflection on life. By the end of the song, I was disabused:

You shuffle in gloom in the sickroom
And talk to yourself till you die

Aren't you allowed to go out to exercise? — Punshhh

Since March 30, officially no:

According to the published decree, leaving one’s place of residence is permitted only for the following: seeking emergency medical care or other direct threats to life and health; traveling to and from work if required to do so; shopping at the nearest existing store or pharmacy; walking pets at a distance not to exceed 100 meters from one’s residence; taking out household garbage. — US embassy

But so far it's not as strict as Spain. Unlike there, I haven't encountered any police checking what I buy at the supermarket. In fact I haven't seen any police in this neighbourhood at all.

Don't worry about the mess, my house would be messy if my wife didn't make me remind me to tidy up and do the housework regularly — Punshhh

Unfortunately my wife is as bad as me.

Tomorrow, I'll definitely do it tomorrow.

Perhaps if folk post an image of where they isolate, it would be interesting to see how our experiences differ? — Punshhh

Right now I long for a garden like that. England?



Isolation Station, Moscow. Pretty much the same as before to be honest, although now my wife is working from home as well, and we can't go out except for essentials. Out the window I can see for many miles across the city, places I cannot go.

Earlier this week, or maybe last week, the Moscow authorities introduced a pass system for travel. If you want to go anywhere in a car or by public transport, you need to get a special QR code from the local government web site. If the police catch you without one they'll fine you 5000 rubles.

Locals are generally derisive about this system, partly because it's been introduced in a rush and quite incompetently and chaotically. The web site crashed several times and the mayor immediately blamed foreign hackers--which I think convinced exactly nobody--and the police don't have scanning devices to check the QR codes, so they have to call back to base to confirm the code's validity. This has caused long queues at the metro stations, leading one journalist to caption a photo with "Stations of the Moscow metro are experiencing unprecedented DDoS attacks organized from abroad". I'm getting to like the Russian sense of humour.

EDIT: I really should clean up.

There was a member here called The Great Whatever. He had a powerful intellect and a persuasive character, an unremitting pessimist, and said the only reason he was still alive was to save his loved ones from the pain.

I presume that antinatalists stay alive merely to convince others. And, not to be too flippant, it's a hard thing on your loved ones to commit suicide.

Yes, I do think that pessimism, or at least antinatalism, is fundamentally a matter of temperament, as something beyond or prior to the rational. The times when I've lost my optimism, in an ethical or political context, have been under the weight of powerful, eloquent pessimism; not because I agreed with any of the arguments of my pessimistic interlocutors, but because they began to emotionally force upon me their outlook. In the end, there is nothing to say to a temperament that has it that the suffering is not worth it.

Antinatalism is not really a philosophy, a free questioning towards truth or towards better ways of thinking or living(!), but more like an aplogetics of a temperamental pessimism. It begins in the temperamental and depends on it completely, which is why the antinatalists can only win if they succeed in spreading their temperamental pessimism. So long as people have the will to live and build and breed, the antinatalists can't get anywhere (I'm not saying that will always be the case). Pessimists realize this and lament it, but...what of it?

It's like the Chartists against the ruling class: it's a battle with good arguments on each side that make no difference except as propaganda: not a matter of objective fact. In the case of pessimism, it's a battle that the pessimists seem so far always to lose, because the a-rational will to live and create is stronger than the urge to give up and let it all fade away. That's a folksy way of putting it, I suppose, but here I feel philosophy doesn't really help, certainly if what is desired is some definitive answer.

EDIT: In @Pfhorrest's terms, most of us, philosophical or not, are ontophiles, and that's not amenable to argument.

"Heymann said masks could create a false sense of security that could end up putting people at greater risk. Even with the mouth and nose fully covered, the virus can still enter through the eyes."

This and the recommendation that carers of covid-19 patients should wear masks both contradict the headline. In fact, the whole article is confusing, and it's not the fault of the article.

It seems that the WHO has been downplaying the protective utility of masks so as to emphasize the more important things, namely distancing and hand washing, etc. Fair enough, but I don't believe masks offer no protection at all, neither does the evidence show that. After all, the virus can enter through the nose and mouth.

Dark and fucked up.

Mainly I like No-Man and some of his other offshoots.

Aye well I like some of his stuff, but personally don't like the stuff where he sings himself, like Porcupine Tree.

An apocalyptic one to suit the mood:

Yes, without self-love you don't hold yourself to account. One way to look at it: when you don't love someone, you're indifferent to their actions--you don't care if they do bad shit.

You can return to the UK and self isolate for 7 days, then live with your parents and help them self isolate. — Punshhh

Yes, that's my top plan right now. Stay in a hotel, or a cottage in the mountains, for 7-10 days till I'm sure I'm ok, and then go to them.

Moscow is fairly relaxed. No signs of panic buying, barely any face masks in the streets or even on the metro (that was a few days ago--I'm avoiding it now and staying at home).

I don't know if I should admire the response of the Russian people or be worried: people are spreading stupid conspiracy theories and pretending the threat doesn't exist.

I'm in Russia but my visa runs out next month, when I'm due to return to Spain, which is currently under lockdown as one of the worst-hit countries in the world. Visa extension applications in Russia have been blocked until May 1st, which is too late for me. I face a choice between travelling to Valencia via Madrid--which is possible as things stand as I have legal residency in Spain, but difficult because of the lockdown, and a bit dangerous just because of the virus--or else going back to the UK and staying with my parents. But I can't risk exposing them to the virus, because they're over 70.

In either case, I might struggle later on, to get a visa back into Russia in July as I'd planned.

Trying to work out if I could get a visa extension and stay here, I called the British Embassy in Moscow, thinking they might be helpful. "You'll have to contact the relevant Russian authorities," they said apologetically. Then they gave me a link to the Russian Embassy in London. I called them and they were not only unhelpful but also unfriendly (she was Russian and trained in the Russian style of customer service). So I asked the question on a Moscow expats Facebook group. One person said contact the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Another said no it's the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Someone else said no it's the Central Immigration Centre. Yet another person said no, they have nothing to do with visas. Someone suggested I go to Thailand.

Just moaning.

Should we be worried — Punshhh

I don't think there's a choice now, unless you choose some kind of oblivion*. We're all swept up in this.

* I'm drinking Russian cognac as I write

Don't know.

Turns out it's sung in Russian in an Armenian style, and it's a hugely popular song around the Caucasus.

There's a twitter icon in the editor tools, which is a shortcut for the code that you can, alternatively, enter manually:

Just a note to say you can embed tweets here:

I've been repeatedly listening to this short recording I made while having a beer in a cafe in a ski resort at the foot of Mount Elbrus in the mainly Muslim Russian Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria in the Caucasus mountains. I'm trying to work out what the music is. Shazam and other apps are giving me no results, and I'm not even sure what the language is. Arabic? Azerbaijani? Turkish? Karachay-Balkar or some other North Caucasian language?

Please help.

Many of us here are not American.

I've been very clear. I've given you a chance to answer, to tell us all what the hell you have in mind, but you respond with evasiveness.

So you have no answer? No clarification of the OP? No attempt to tell us in what way you think "I know" is vague?

I would have deleted the OP if I'd seen it before it generated a discussion. It's so lacking in anything philosophical or interesting that it looks like just an attempt to get on the main page instead of the Lounge, where your threads usually end up.

You don't know what "know" means? Have you looked it up? Have you got anything to say about how it has been treated by philosophers?

In what way is its use vague, as you keep on saying it is, with no explanation? You have not described the problem with "I know" or how it is vague. It's your OP that is vague. There is no clear question, and what there is doesn't make much sense.

It seems inherent, that we assume that the other person "knows" — Wallows

Not at all. When someone says they know, we don't just assume they do, unless it seems fairly uncontroversial and we don't have reason to doubt it, in which case we might give them the benefit of the doubt. But you don't give any context anyway; there are different ways of using the word.

What is the philosophical issue? What does this have to do with formal languages, which is something you brought up?

Do you think "speculative" is really applicable to the moral aspect of the position I'm against? To my ear that sounds specifically about what might be real or true, not what might be moral or good. — Pfhorrest

Yes, I see what you mean.

Less troublesome terms, ones that don't introduce Kant's more subtle and unique transcendental, are immanent and speculative. Kant uses these terms too, but in an obvious way that's in line with what you're saying.

Yeah I think that works.

EDIT: Although it's probably still going to be confusing and distracting for anyone who has struggled with these terms in Kant.

My instinct is to say you should ditch the word entirely and find something else (I may think of something later), but between those two options I'd go for the latter. The trouble with that is you inevitably introduce a distinction that you're not interested in, which distracts from your main points. In fact, that criticism would apply to the other option too.

Incidentally, and to make things even more confusing, your own position might be classed as a form of transcendental philosophy, in that it attempts, a bit like Kant, to describe and police the boundary between legitimate and illegitimate philosophy, between thinking about the objects of experience and a speculative metaphysics about objects beyond it.

I've just read the essay and I can see that despite the clear definition of transcendentalism at the beginning, elsewhere in the essay you use transcendental in the sense of Kant's transcendent. I don't think you can mention Kant and then ignore the distinction.

@Pfhorrest I'm sorry if you think I'm rudely ignoring your essay and the reasons you chose to use the term transcendentalism, but I can't resist a bit of Kant clarification:

The distinction between transcendent and transcendental is very important in Kant. He uses transcendent to describe metaphysics that reaches beyond possible experience, as opposed to immanent metaphysics, which is effectively just physics (or in any case is restricted to the empirical use of the understanding). This is the distinction you have in mind in the essay.

Let us call the principles whose application keeps altogether within the
limits of possible experience immanent principles, and those that are to fly beyond these limits transcendent principles. — Kant, CPR, A296/B352-3

In contrast, he uses transcendental to describe his own philosophy, the enquiry into the possibility of the a priori. There are quotations all over the CPR to this effect, if I recall correctly (I don't have access to it right now). Here's one I found somewhere:

We must not call just any a priori cognition transcendental, but must call transcendental (i.e., concerning the a priori possibility or the a priori use of cognition) only that a priori cognition whereby we cognize that—and how—certain presentations (intuitions or concepts) are applied, or are possible, simply a priori. — Kant, CPR, A56/B80-81

Since this is what Kant is doing, transcendental cognition is okay according to him, but transcendent isn't.

This unfortunate but now unavoidable distinction makes "transcendentalism" ambiguous in a work of philosophy, even without taking into account the most common use of the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism . But maybe it's fair to use it when you define it clearly as you do, as to do with Kant's transcendent rather than his transcendental.

EDIT: These definitions are pretty good:

transcendent: the realm of thought which lies beyond the boundary of possible knowledge, because it consists of objects which cannot be presented to us in intuition-i.e., objects which we can never experience with our senses (sometimes called noumena). The closest we can get to gaining knowledge of the transcendent realm is to think about it by means of ideas. (The opposite of ‘transcendent’ is ‘immanent’.)

transcendental: one of Kant’s four main perspectives, aiming to establish a kind of knowledge which is both synthetic and a priori. It is a special type of philosophical knowledge, concerned with the necessary conditions for the possibility of experience. However, Kant believes all knowing subjects assume certain transcendental truths, whether or not they are aware of it. Transcendental knowledge defines the boundary between empirical knowledge and speculation about the transcendent realm. ‘Every event has a cause’ is a typical transcendental statement. (Cf. empirical.)

https://kantphilosophy.wordpress.com/technical-terms-of-kantian-philosophy/

We've had reading groups, and we had monthly readings for a while, a couple of years ago, in which we would discuss short philosophy papers. It was good while it lasted, but we were persuaded to choose a couple of really crappy or boring papers and that probably put people off.

All it takes is for a few people to dedicate their effort and time. There have been lots of suggestions for reading groups over the past few months, mainly by Wallows, but nothing has come of them.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/16/reading-groups

He has suggested trying again in the future some time, with just one thread and a more general topic.

Along with Jonathan Miller, Clive James and Gary Rhodes died yesterday as well. Rhodes, being a chef and not a writer, wasn't known for his words, but James wrote a lot of good stuff:

Common sense and a sense of humor are the same thing, moving at different speeds. A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing.

All intellectual tendencies are corrupted when they consort with power.

There is no reasoning someone out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.

Personally, I liked his criticism:

Here is a book so dull that a whirling dervish could read himself to sleep with it. If you were to recite even a single page in the open air, birds would fall out of the sky and dogs drop dead. — Clive James on Brezhnev: A Short Biography

47..."Forget this transcendent certainty, which is connected with your concept of spirit."

In what way is certainty linked to the notion of spirit? — ZzzoneiroCosm

It's a puzzling one. First, it's clear that here and throughout On Certainty he attacks the notion that ordinary certainty is not enough, that we need, not only a solid bedrock, but one that is is somehow guaranteed to be solid, for all time and universally, that is, an absolute certainty. This impossible kind of knowledge would be transcendent, as it would require a foundation external to human capacities.

This is where the concept of spirit comes in, I think. Transcendent (not transcendental) metaphysics is part of what Wittgenstein and others were reacting against in the early 20th century. Passage 47 implies that he sees a connection between the epistemological search for absolute certainty, and transcendent metaphysics such as that of the rationalists. In OC, Wittgenstein is discussing Moore, who was defending common sense against philosophers such as Bradley, for whom the concept of spirit may have been significant, as it was for Hegel, who heavily influenced Bradley. Wittgenstein's word is Geist, the same as Hegel's. Spirit transcends our everyday reality, and is thus similar to the Holy Grail of epistemology.

Here's the context:

46. But then can’t it be described how we satisfy ourselves of the reliability of a calculation? O yes! Yet no rule emerges when we do so.—But the most important thing is: The rule is not needed. Nothing is lacking. We do calculate according to a rule, and that is enough.

47. This is how one calculates. Calculating is this. What we learn at school, for example. Forget this transcendent certainty, which is connected with your concept of spirit. — Wittgenstein

So calculating according to a rule is enough. Even if it is legitimate to ask if the rule itself is reliable, we shouldn't expect by doing so to find another, higher level, transcendent rule. In the end it is in the very following of the rule that one attains correctness and reliability.

Wittgenstein appears to view this yearning for transcendent truth, rules, knowledge, certainty, and so on, as all connected to the bad philosophical habit, a legacy of theology, that Kant ends up rejecting in the Critique of Pure Reason. As far as Wittgenstein was spiritual, he regarded it as involving what cannot be said, and therefore as nothing to do with philosophy.

I think art is an exception to the kind of commodity production that Marx identifies as being the normal capitalist way of going on. Art is more akin to previous, less alienated modes of production. In any case, Marx wasn't remotely concerned with it in Capital, because it's atypical.

But if you're thinking of art production as a model of un-alienated production and exchange, then maybe you're on to something.

In Capital, as fdrake suggests, Marx identifies anything that we value as a use value before we consider whether and how it's being produced for and exchanged in a market. It doesn't matter for his purposes, in that work, in what way these things are useful or desired: they can be any kind of wanted things, not only necessities but also works of art, entertainment, gratification, etc.

By the way, don't mistake Marx's neglect here, in Capital, for a temperamental or moral neglect of art in general.

I deleted it for low quality.

My computer is sentient, you can not deny it!

What if I say a PC becomes conscious the moment you connect it with a monitor and it displays some content. Then I can say, look, there it is its qualia right there on the display, that's what it thinks, that's what it feels. It does not feel like we do in terms of pain and desire, but in terms of geometry of overlapping densities of magnetic and electric fields, however is that supposed to feel.

How can you deny this sentience?

It seems more like a passing thought than a philosophical thesis or discussion-point. A lot of work has been done in philosophy of mind, cognitive science, and so on, but this OP didn't acknowledge any of that.

If I haven't seen a discussion before it has generated a lot of comments, I will sometimes leave it even if it's low quality. In this case, it hadn't generated much discussion when I saw it.