Are you asking me to quote what you have said to show that I have read you carefully enough?

The point is that the separation you have made between the interests of the Russians and the 'west' do not amount to a fundamental disagreement about 'world order'.

Russian Imperialists have bank accounts in Western Banks. The system does not work without that Capital. You seem to be the summer child of unfortunate winter.

So, what makes it special enough to oppose the 'west' as anything different from what they are up to?

I know some of the nefarious happenings after the fall of the wall.

Your derision does not clarify the difference between capitalists I asked about.

One origin for prayer may be from associating an expression of gratitude for good fortune to whatever agency is making it possible.

So, not a matter of belief as much as a measure of respect. Honoring the gods may not bring hoped for results but pissing them off seems like a bad idea.

Being polite was the first martial art.

The Western calls for, and attempts to institute "progressive change in Russia" is the direct reason why Putin exists, and why people are dying in Ukraine today — StreetlightX

The 'west' did not require the failed state of the USSR to transfer it's wealth into fungible goods and Capital secured in global markets. That is on them. That is why Russia is called a kleptocracy.

It can be argued that such practices are not much different from what is happening elsewhere but to do so deflates the idea that there is something different or even interesting about the Russian capitalists. If the logic of money explains 'western' interest, how is that different from 'Russian' interests? To insist upon a difference will put you in bed with Apollodorus who says that:

NATO’s jihad on Russia may or may not lead to a military and economic defeat of Russia, but it may equally be the beginning of the end for America and Europe. — Apollodorus

Are you on board with that program?

Your last question is boring. I will leave you to your own devices.

It seems unlikely to me that the different lines of production you point to can be separated so sharply.

That puts the date pretty far back.

Your idea suggests we knew ourselves as sovereign individuals long ago but lost that knowledge through unfortunate political formations. It is a mythological thought current through many cultures. An interesting article of faith against the backdrop of the epistemology you seemed to have affirmed.

What distinguishes those two things? Or, asked another way, when did the fake stuff emerge?

There needs to be a healthy balance between faith and reason. — Dermot Griffin

What does bringing that about look like?

The Enlightenment was motivated, in part, by the desire to not be told what to think by the powers that be. Is the better civilization reached by 'freedom' from the influence of reason or by reestablishing the control that lives of faith often live under?

The latter option is easy to imagine because it has been done many times in the past. The former option has been expressed as a communitarian right to live separately from others to preserve belief but is rarely depicted as the ruling principle of a civilization.

I figured that referencing Ecclesiastes would indicate that I was not claiming some fantastic advance for mankind as such.

Technology has made it increasingly easy to kill people but your proposal that 'barbarism' of the sort that does not recognize 'honor', did not occur before WW1 is fantasy. People have been wiping out other people for time out of mind.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to measure the misery of the present age with that suffered in the past. A fair amount of the testimony suggests that Ecclesiastes was right in saying that it is the Same Day, just different shit.

The present world order is terrible, unjust, and insane but I will take it over the Hundreds of Years of religious wars and the slavery of subsistence living.

Oh wait, we are still doing all of that. But not so much. And not being convinced that there was a Golden Age of simplicity lets me appreciate the benefits and freedom of movement denied to previous generations, at least to the point where I am not burned for being a heretic. The process that made that less likely surely owes a lot to the Enlightenment. It is as if a certain group of people got together and wondered how to constrain the power of these simple people so assured of their own righteousness.

This response from the Russian military reminds me of how the U.S. decided not to wipe out populations in Vietnam they were capable of doing at the time. And there are those who insisted that reluctance, in that regard, was the cause of defeat.

The Westmoreland cost / benefit analysis was given a shot in blood and dollars. Is there a parallel in the present situation?

Yes, the thing about how MAD works is that a preemptive strike would require a massive saturation of fire to avoid having launch sources taken out by the other side. But having the chance to launch all one's missiles does not stop other people firing before they are hit.

Lavrov is not referring to the possible use of tactical nukes because that would signal a loss of confidence in the methods already being employed to defeat Ukraine which are going swimmingly by his account.

An interesting counterpoint to Spinoza cancelling the notion of will as ether a prerogative of the divine or what individuals do is that he places much value in being less stupid as an agent of change in the world.

You are right, the prime mover would have to be physical to be an efficient cause.

The books are labeled according to Greek letters. Are you referring to Lambda or Mu?

For fans of SRV:


Great ensemble playing between Bass and second and first Guitar (depending upon the part of the song).

Hendrix does a beautiful rendition on the "Blues" collection, but I cannot find a You Tube version worth posting.

Large counterattacks might indeed carry with them huge risks the Ukrainians don't want to make at least now. — ssu

I imagine force protection has to be the top criteria for such decisions. The Ukrainians cannot assume to know the depths of resources on the other side. There have been remarkably few instances of over extended forces on the Ukranian side. Most of those situations came from betting Putin would not actually do what he did.

My impression from FN calling eternal recurrence a doctrine is that he meant it to be an antidote to the idea of an eternal life that turns our time in this cosmos into a waiting room for death. In that context, it is sharply against seeing one's existence as a cycle through generations. Whatever we can give to future generations is only possible through what we give to ourselves as ourselves.

The waiting room for death is more nihilistic than the death of God as the judge of good and evil.

The problem with their arguments is that everything has potential through their actuality and it can't be proven that matter is inferior to simplicity — Gregory

Do you have a passage of Aquinas that brings this point about simplicity forward?

This, of course, should not be taken literally. The trope is one of Nietzsche's "inversions" of the innocence of the child in Christianity — Fooloso4

The use of "inversions" is an odd feature of Nietzsche's work. He said that one should be careful about what one opposes because it gives the 'enemy' new life. The battle better be worth it.

The idea of eternal recurrence is at odds with the 'future of a species' vision. Each person will only be what they experience being themselves. So, what does it mean to insist upon that necessity while saying other things about the world?

The undeniable is strangely unsuited for any of the available jobs on offer.

And the Aquinas part?

I will be back with my books tomorrow.

I don't know what texts you are referring to assert these statements with such certainty.

Yes, I get the unmoved part. Where in Aquinas does he suggest this agency is not an 'efficient cause'?

Please cite where you read this in Aquinas.

From the point of view in Aristotle, referring to an 'unmoved' mover is the ultimate image of an efficient cause.

Point taken. I see them as joined together. But proceed with the same question regarding 'final cause'.

Prime Mover is only final cause. There is no efficient cause. — Jackson

Rather than present a challenge to this statement, I ask you to provide the basis for it.

The 'formal' cause, by the way, is to say that what one has been made for, is for the sake of fulfilling that possibility to the furthest extent.

That sounds like agency to me. I figure some amount of mutual understanding about this should come before explaining my use of X idea.

I don't understand your reference to this as a 'Christian' idea.

Aristotle clearly does not think God/Prime Mover is the maker of the world. This is a Christian concept. For Aristotle, God has no agency. — Jackson

Aristotle does not assign the role of 'creator of the universe' to the Prime Mover but there is much agency implied in being both the efficient and formal cause of all that is generated. Aristotle does sharply separate what is generated from what is 'eternal'. The discussion has more to do with departures from Plato than anything "Christian".

I don't have an image for what you are thinking of in this regard.

I understand the distinction between methods that you make. I agree with Fooloso4 that people do not build temples to the Prime Mover.

The emphasis upon creeds is not the same amongst different kinds of worship. The difference of methods is not so much about beliefs being 'incontrovertible' as it involves a relationship to a divine agent (or agents). In that sense, Aristotle's god is impersonal in comparison to the Olympian pantheon as well as those groups gathered in particular testimonies of faith connected to a world shaped by our decisions.

So, Paul's faith, for instance, is not a good measure of what giving respect to Apollo or Dionysus involves. The differences of method that separates the 'personal' from the 'impersonal', is not self-explanatory toward the purpose of distinguishing the divine from the natural for all who try to do it. That would clump together what should be seen in contrast.

My impression from reading Aristotle is that the unfolding of beings according to their potential to become what they were meant to be is the clearest encounter with a maker of the world. There is encouragement to become 'more like' this agent but those encouragements happen in the context of recognizing that what makes us is tied to our agency no matter what.

Aristotle is not that far from approaching creation stories in the manner of Timaeus, where we are told constantly that the stories are 'likely' but cannot be confirmed. What Aristotle did with the Prime Mover is to introduce that factor as an X. He does not know the value but can proceed without knowing it. It has a function.

Paul was not content to disagree with the 'natural' world but presented his vision as a "foolishness to the Greeks and a scandal for the Jews," It was a diremption with the philosophical that became philosophical. A personal vision that would sweep away tradition and the 'thinking' of the time which others tried to heal.

That is a lot different from Apollo cutting a deal with the Furies over the limits of revenge.

Well, you asked if Aristotle distinguished the realm of Becoming from some conditions that were not bound by those limits. In the context of asking what is 'theological', that is an important difference to bring to mind.

Quote passages that support your view.

Generated beings happen because they appear through time and so have beginnings and endings as organisms. That element of this life is sharply distinguished in Aristotle from what is presumed to be timeless.

He was looking for the cat; he didn't start from the assumption he had found it. — Banno

I think that is true. On the other hand, he based his model upon separating the 'realm of becoming' from what is timeless:

So, it is evident from what has been said that what is called "a form" or "a substance" is not generated, but what is generated is the composite which is named according to that form, and that there is matter in everything that is generated, and in the latter one part is this and another that.
— Metaphysics, 1033b 15, translated by H.G. Apostle

In regards to recognizing a 'natural' theology in contrast to any other kind, this thing about time and what happens within it is not just a narrative of revelation and what might be promised by gods. Or if it is, then there is no distinction to be made between kinds of theology.

Are you onboard with Aristotle saying that the first principles that bring about the realm of becoming we live in is a matter of what he called "theology"?

There's a legitimate branch of philosophy that is concerned with natural theology. It's defining characteristic is that unlike other theologies it does not rely on scripture, mysticism or revelation. Hence, just talking about god is not sufficient to differentiate theology form philosophy. — Banno

Does the Timaeus count as a proponent of natural theology?

It sounds like the Ukrainians and the Russians had nothing to do with it from that paraphrase. Seems unlikely in view of the "civil" war quality of the participants.

The U.S. has fought a lot of proxy wars. One quality that has appeared consistently in those conflicts is how the people actually fighting for themselves came to use foreign powers for their own ends. It turns out that it is not just a game of Risk.