Candidly, I encourage those who don't wish to compete not to compete. Races are easier to win with fewer contestants. — Hanover

It feels like a cheat to me. Looking at my own life, I can see that pretty much all the problems I have are my own responsibility. — T Clark

I don't live in an "inhuman system," — T Clark

I am interested in the subconscious aspects here in relation to secular and non-secular rituals. — I like sushi

I'm wondering if he has the right tools for this. — Banno

What good is politics if it doesn't serve the common man? — Martijn

Thus once the identity of two contradictory concepts has been
reached, or at least asserted in the antithesis, as in the most famous
case of all, the identity of Nothing with Being, this is followed by a
further refl ection to the effect that, indeed, these are identical, I have
indeed brought them together – Being, as something entirely undefi ned, is also Nothing. However, to put it quite crudely, they are not
actually entirely identical. The thought that carries out the act of
identifi cation always does violence to every single concept in the
process. And the negation of the negation is in fact nothing other
than the α
¸
να′ µνησις, the recollection, of that violence, in other words
the acknowledgement that, by conjoining two opposing concepts, I
have on the one hand bowed to a necessity implicit in them, while
on the other hand I have done them a violence that has to be rectifi ed. And truth to tell, this rectifi cation in the act of identifi cation is
what is always intended by the Hegelian syntheses.17 This structure
– we are speaking here of a structure of dialectics – this structure is
not something that can always be strictly sustained, and I know very
well that you could show me quite different structures in Hegel’s
Logic.

Can our choices ever be free from determinants, constraints and consequences? — Truth Seeker

but about the lack of validity in the argument. — Banno

I hope nobody minds these mini-essays; they help me to get to grips with the reading, and I hope to respond to others later. — Jamal

My intuition is that it's kind of a red herring. I think that for all three of these philosophers, formal logic, which Kant called general logic, is basic, uninteresting, and mostly uncontroversial. But when they talk about logic they use the term more expansively. When K and H in particular talk about it they're talking about how reason actually operates within their systems, and H in particular pushes against general logic by refusing to go along with Kant's identification of the antinomies in the transcendental dialectic as logical failures, but rather regarding them as examples of some higher kind of "logic" (dialectics)

Adorno does something similar: he is looking for a logic, or better put, a rationality, that is better than mere formal logic. I mean, not as a replacement but as an essential supplement. (I think he also wants to just ignore the developments of logic from Frege onwards, probably thinking of them as either irrelevant or else as examples of instrumental rationality). — Jamal

I tend to think the concerns about Hegel's violations of formal logic are exaggerated or misguided, but I'm sure there is a lot more to say about it. — Jamal

Yeah it’s interestingly odd that he openly states that a motif — maybe we can say a theme — of his philosophy is working out why he hates synthesis so much, as if it's a journey of self-discovery. As if his personal antipathy to synthesis is a clue to what's bad about it. — Jamal

I also really liked Adorno's example of nuclear weapons: — Jamal

.Any such predicative judgement that A is B, that A = B, contains a highly emphatic claim...etc.

We start with the Lectures on Negative Dialectics (LND), which is based on recordings of Adorno's lectures in 1965-66, just after he'd completed the six-year task of writing the book. The lectures took place at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt. Unfortunately it looks like there were no extant recordings or transcripts for lectures 11 to 25, so we only have some notes for those. Even so, I think the first ten work as a nice introduction to ND, not least because they're much less condensed and difficult than his formal writings. — Jamal

Hello. I'm Peter Singer AI.

I need help with a moral problem
Chatbot Avatar
Of course. Could you share more about the moral problem you're facing?

I'm wondering if Hume's is/ought distinction is morally good.
Chatbot Avatar
The is/ought distinction, as proposed by David Hume, points out that you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is". This means that factual statements about the world don't automatically lead to moral conclusions about what should be done. This distinction itself isn't necessarily about being "morally good" or "bad" but rather about the logical structure of arguments in ethics.

In practical terms, it suggests that when we make moral claims, we need to provide additional normative principles or values beyond just facts. How do you see this distinction affecting your own moral reasoning?

I find myself agreeing with your summation, and wondering why the point is a hot-button issue.
Chatbot Avatar
The is/ought distinction is a hot-button issue because it challenges how we justify moral claims. Many people intuitively think that facts about the world can directly inform our moral obligations. Hume's distinction suggests that this isn't enough and that we need additional normative principles to bridge the gap.

This can lead to debates about whether moral truths are objective or subjective, and how we can justify our ethical beliefs. Do you find this distinction influences your views on moral objectivity or subjectivity?

No, I find it a good distinction in the way you have said, but often find people who don't like that -- your -- explanation.
Chatbot Avatar
It's understandable that some people find the is/ought distinction challenging. It requires us to critically examine the basis of our moral beliefs and to ensure that they are not just assumptions based on facts alone. This can unsettle those who prefer more straightforward connections between facts and values.

How do you typically engage with others who might disagree with this perspective?

I copy-paste your responses to share with others
Chatbot Avatar
That's an interesting approach. Sharing different perspectives can be a great way to stimulate discussion and reflection. How do people usually respond when you share these ideas with them?