Oh, then you should tell so --that you are an insider-- from the beginning ... I would have been more careful in the way I expressed my comment! :grin:I'm a trained human rights lawyer. People underestimate the good unions have brought because especially Americans are hung-up on the mob influence on the unions in the past. It's not representative of its history. — Benkei
Yes, this is the central idea, I think.the unions are not a guarantee for the worker's incomes if they go on strike. — javi2541997
Right. I learned about that too in the way! :smile:I learnt in this thread that it is obvious some unions are more effective than others. — javi2541997
Benkei, my reaction to the payment of the members by the union was too absolute and so in part wrong. I referred to regular payment, income, as you said. I was also referring esp. to Greece. But as I learned on the road, in some cases and countries, there's a kind of compentation by the unions to the workers for their loss of income during strikes. And a compensation is a payment too.Doesn't the union provide income during the strike? — Benkei
Maybe in some cases and countries. But this is not a regular pay. It's a kind of compensation.unions generally pay their members during a strike. — BC
Maybe so. I have not weighed them on a scale. :smile:The 'pros' and 'cons' list is not balanced. The 'pro' side is far stronger than the 'con' side. — BC
I can hardly believe this. Have you any reference in which a Dutch union pays its members in the case of strikes? But even if this were true, it will be an exception. So, I save you the trouble of searching for such a reference! :smile:in the Netherlands every union has money saved up for strikes to enable them to pay strikers — Benkei
John Stuart Mill, in the quote you brought in, speaks from an idealistic viewpoint. He talks about "liberty" and "necessity". Here we have a specific, real-life, actual case, in which the notion of "liberty" is not even involved. As for "necessity", well, if supporting one's family is not a necessity, what is?think the best option would be to adhere to the duty of commission. I say this because like John Stuart Mill stated — Justin5679
You don't know about the unionization in Greece! :grin:The United States is not the best example of how unionisation works. — Banno
I believe these two are incompatible with each other as to the direction and recipient of the effect (fear and anger).The boss's weapon is fear, the union's weapon is anger.
I prefer anger to fear. — Moliere
Unions are an essential element in a progressive and democratic society, and they are a vital protection for workers -- provided they are strong. — BC
Where have you heard that from?Doesn't the union provide income during the strike? — Benkei
There are a lot of sectors in business world --besides companies-- where such an inequality --and even worse-- is happening, unfortunately. See what's happening in the world of sports, for instance: top tennis players, NBA players, top football/soccer teams, etc. They are 10 to 100 times the money their fellow players of the next category, who also try hard and play their guts out in every match. Totally unfair. In fact, a shame IMO.The ratio of CEO-to-typical-worker pay soared to 399-to-1 under EPI’s realized measure of CEO pay, the highest ratio on record, up from 366-to-1 in 2020 and a massive increase from 59-to-1 in 1989. — Vera Mont
Interesting.Things began to change for these communities in the 1980s, when American corporations began to outsource production and re-engineer their organizations to adapt to globalization. — Vera Mont
All this is quite sad, indeed.Millions of Americans struggle to get by on low wages, ... — Vera Mont
I believe this is quite a biased view, and not a very reasonable one either, Vera Mont. Management works for the interests of their company. As with the blue-collar workers --I can't differentiate them as "employees", because managment personnel is among them too :smile:-- and it is the company that pays them too, so it's only logical that they are loyal to it. They have no obligation to be loyal to the blue-collars, but only to be fair, have good relations with them, and all that. Besides, the same applies to the blue-collars.Managements rarely see it that way; rarely show reciprocal loyalty to the employees. It usually is very much an adversarial situation. — Vera Mont
Right.You owe them a fair day's work for a fair day's pay - nothing more. — Vera Mont
... and our inside world. We are also conscious of our thinking, feelings ... whatever happens in us.it seems reasonable to suggest that conscious experiences are perceptual representations of information from the outside world — Apustimelogist
Such a kind of representation is unreliable and futile. Consciousness is not a physical thing --i.e. non- physical in its nature-- and it is not created by or resides in the brain or other physical means as Science falsely claims. The brain is only a link between consciousness and the outside world. As you correctly said, consciousness is based on perception (senses), as far as the external world is concerned, and for that to work. a brain is required.We can further motivate this representational view through the knowledge we have from neuroscience about how perceptual qualities are directly related to different physical stimuli at our sensory boundaries e.g. colors and wavelengths etc. — Apustimelogist
I certainly agree. Shortcut or "longcut" knowledge is not a criterion. The first can sometimes even be more valuable than the second. There's a lot of "condensed" knowledge in some philosopher's sayings that proves much more valuable, useful and truthful, than the conclusions one can reached to by examining a subject thoroughly, which, in fact, is not a guarantee that one can "get to the bone" of it.in my experience, when a quicker route to understanding is available, it is often wise to take said journey. — Bret Bernhoft
Maybe "believe in" is a little too much? It actually means to have faith or confidence in the existence of something. OK, I assume you mean just "believe".In a society where govenments try to tell you what is true and raise you into believing what you believe, in a world that is ever more dividing, when we're looking at news or whatever is going on around us, how do we know what to believe in? — Hailey
Hi. I guess these are the "more than one questions" you are talking about, right?But why philosophy anyway ? If a person is happy who needs it ? It’s often recognized that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between? — simplyG
Hi. I guess these are the "more than one questions" you are talking about, right?But why philosophy anyway ? If a person is happy who needs it ? It’s often recognized that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between? — simplyG
Of course. Otherwise, if subjectivity were always "shared", the expression "shared subjectivity" would have no meaning, would it? :wink:Along with shared subjectivity, there is also exclusive subjectivity e.g. only I know the contents of my dreams and what thoughts and recollections occur to me. — Truth Seeker
You mean, when you are conscious, you are conscious indeed. But how do you know that you are not dreaming or hallucinating? You may be dreaming or hallucinating at any time. And you wouldn't know it if you are.My statement: "It is possible that what I perceive is either a dream or a hallucination or an illusion or a simulation and not objectively real." does not invalidate my previous statement: "I am 100% certain that I am conscious." My experience of being conscious makes me 100% certain that I am conscious when I am conscious. I don't experience this when I am unconscious. — Truth Seeker
"Shared subjectivity" ... Interesting expression. Never met it or thought about it. I personally use the expression "shared reality". But I agree with the way you described it.there is such a thing as shared subjectivity e.g. we can both see the Sun and the Moon. So, the Sun and the Moon exist in our shared subjective world. Most humans would say that the existence of the Sun and the Moon is an objective truth because every human with a functioning visual system sees the Sun and the Moon when they are visible. — Truth Seeker
I assume that this applied at the exact moment you were composing this topic. Because you cannot say "I am conscious" in general, i.e. with no time reference. So, since we are talking about 100% certainty, we should also be as exact as possible in our statements, whether these are applied to being, having or doing.I am 100% certain that I am conscious — Truth Seeker
Right. This is the first thing that came to my mind. And see, you are bringing it up yourself, invalidating therefore your first statement, i.e. that you are 100% certain that you are conscious! :smile:It is possible that what I perceive is either a dream or a hallucination or an illusion or a simulation and not objectively real. — Truth Seeker
Second invalidation! :smileI have no way of knowing this with 100% certainty. Given the fact that I cannot know with 100% certainty what is objectively real — Truth Seeker
Now, this makes it much more difficult to talk about 100% certainty, since morality is something relative and can be defined in a lot of different ways.how can I know what is morally correct with 100% certainty? — Truth Seeker
I think that now we lost --at least I-- the ball!How can we know if macroscopic determinism is true or false with 100% certainty? — Truth Seeker
Normally, this is true. But there may be cases that a proposition is ambiguous, or incomplete in some way, as I explained. So in these cases --and in general, if a proposition is ambiguous-- we cannot decide about its truth or falsety. I didn't say that a proposition must be always absolute (i.e. non-relative) or precise. Indeed, in philosophy, logical statements is not as precise as in Math.A proposition is true or it is false. A proposition cannot be neither, and it can't be more of less true, unless we're talking about complex propositions where some percent of the atomic propositions that compose it are true and some false. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I know. Most people don't, as I have mentioned at the end of my message. :smile:I have never liked this explanations though. — Count Timothy von Icarus
A prognostic cannot be true or false. Only what exists or has happened or is happening can. A prognostic is about possibilities and probabilities. It's a guess. One has to wait the situation that is prognosed become an actuality --i.e. true-- or not. Isn't that right?After all, does any proposition about who will win the 2024 election actually have a truth value yet? — Count Timothy von Icarus
From Dictionary.com we read about the meaning of the term "proposition" in specialized fields, that are included in philosophy:Philosophically, a proposition is a statement that is truth-apt and not merely something “suggested to be considered, accepted, or done”. — Bob Ross
Nothing of these is a proposition. They are just information about things that happened or happen are are going to happen. That is either facts (past and present) or expectations (future). There is nothing in them that proposes anything. We can't say, e.g. " I propose that Bob went to the store yesterday”, or "I propose that Bob is eating” or "I propose that Bob is going to eat”. They all sound ridiculous, don't theyA proposition can be about the past (e.g, “bob went to the store yesterday”), present (e.g., “bob is eating”), future (e.g., “bob is going to eat”), tenseless expressions (e.g., “bob went to the store on Friday, December 23rd, 2022 at 5:55 a.m.”) — Bob Ross
A proposition is something that is suggested to be considered, accepted or done. It clearly refers to the future. A fact on the other hand refers to something that is present or in the past. These terms/concepts are incompatible with each other. They cannot replace one another.I would say that a ‘fact’ is a proposition of which its content appropriately agrees/corresponds to reality — Bob Ross
A fact cannot be moral or immoral. Not for the reasons you are stating but by definition.There is no such thing as a moral fact, even in the case that they do exist, which is simultaneously a fundamental obligation; that is, the core principle which commits oneself to the moral facts, in the case that they exist, is necessarily a moral non-fact. — Bob Ross
Good point. One must always have examples in life regarding a philosophical truth and be able to apply it in life.'d go one step further and say you have to know how to use philosophy in your everyday life in order to really be able to say you do philosophy. — T Clark
If you cannot define what "base reality" is, how can you witness it? :smile:When I say "Base Reality" I do not purpose that there is a definite physical reality in which I exist, I am, instead, pointing more to a thought or an argument. I am incapable of witnessing any sort of base reality but I am not incapable of inferring its existence. — vanzhandz