Or, more properly, they are -- but they are also acts of intellect. — Moliere

Yea. Existentialists tell you to pay attention to your first person experience, but they do it in an intellectual way. Kind of contradictory. :grin:

but it's still very intellectual. — Moliere

I don't think so. Kierkegaard is the beginning of existentialism. His point was that the the more fully you become lost in the landscape of the intellect, the more disconnected and alienated you'll be from the knowledge that's most direct and intimate: the knowledge of what it feels like to be alive.

I don't know if you saw my SEP quotes, but Descartes also points to this as what he meant by "cogito": he is talking about awareness, which is only sometimes of ideas.

Well, I open my eyes and see a bird, and think, "Huh, a bird" and then I close them and the experience has ended. — J

Like a curtain coming down. You just need some credits rolling. :grin:

I know this isn't what you mean, but it's what I mean when I ask about a temporal slot for a particular thought, understood not psychologically as a brain event but some other way. Brain or no brain, isn't it still an event in time? — J

Yes, probably. You're kind of stomping all over the existentialism with your intellectual observations, tho.

Yes. — J

Really? That's wild. What's that like?

Become aware now of the sights and sounds around you. Do you detect a beginning or ending to the experience?

Fair enough, but is the first-person thing an event that happens from T1 - Tn? — J

The answer to that depends on your hinge propositions. If you believe time is an illusion and the soul resides in eternity, then you would say no.

Always a pleasure to get your insights, thanks. BTW, Wall St is not liking the fact that Biden told Ukraine to strike inside Russia. Stocks are tumbling.

From the SEP

"Third, the certainty of the cogito depends on being formulated in terms of cogitatio – i.e., my thinking, or awareness/consciousness more generally. Any mode of thinking is sufficient, including doubting, affirming, denying, willing, understanding, imagining, and so on (cf. Med. 2, AT 7:28). My bodily activities, however, are insufficient. For instance, it’s no good to reason that “I exist, since I am walking,” because methodical doubt calls into question the existence of my legs. Maybe I’m just dreaming that I have legs. A simple revision, such as “I exist, since it seems I’m walking,” restores the anti-sceptical potency (cf. Replies 5, AT 7:352; Prin. 1:9)." — SEP

Also:

"Second, a present tense formulation is essential to the certainty of the cogito. It’s no good to reason that “I existed last Tuesday, since I recall that I was thinking on that day.” For all I know, I’m now merely dreaming about that occasion. Nor does it work to reason that “I’ll continue to exist, since I’m now thinking.” As the meditator remarks, “it could be that were I totally to cease from thinking, I should totally cease to exist” (Med. 2, AT 7:27, CSM 2:18). The privileged certainty of the cogito is grounded in the “manifest contradiction” (AT 7:36, CSM 2:25) of trying to think away my present thinking." — SEP

Descartes sort of invented the idea of nerves because through dissecting bodies, he saw the "strings" that go from the central nervous system out to the muscles. He thought that these strings are plucked in some way so that the body moves like a puppet. He also famously concluded that the soul must be in the pineal gland. I think it's pretty clear from the Meditations that he isn't defining "thought" as an event in the brain, though. It's more of a first person thing.

But Russians can reach their objectives of breaking the Atlantic tie and to severely weaken NATO. That is the real goal of Russia here. — ssu

I guess Russia-EU relations will return to normal now that Trump is taking office. Gas and oil will begin to flow again? The US will lose whatever influence it ever had over Europe. Europeans hate America anyway, so that's probably a good thing for everyone.

And they can succeed because if Trump really sees that the biggest enemy is the deepstate in the US, that "makes forever wars" and Putin says that he is now fighting the US. Aren't then the objectives totally in line here with the same objectives? — ssu

Trump's attack on the "deep state" is just about securing his control over the government. He doesn't share the ideological sentiments of his supporters. Putin's fight against the US is over, I think. Trump and Putin are pals.

In my view, the populist idea is simply learning the wrong lessons from past conflicts: that sometimes it actually is worth wile to intervene even if Smedley Butler's old ideas are sometimes true, when the war goals are bizarre and a simple reaction to the people's demand for revenge. — ssu

I think we're entering a new global era. The US will continue to shrink off of the world stage. China will continue to grow and learn. All eyes will turn eastward.

Are you offering a psychological story -- that is, a story about actual thoughts -- in which case it must indeed occur in time? — J

Why?

Ah yes. With the magical supervenience, which fills all manner of explanatory gaps. — Wayfarer

There's nothing magical about Davidson.

Putnam suggests that the Metaphysical Realist is committed to the existence of a unique correspondence between statements in a language or theory and a determinate collection of mind and language-independent objects in the world. Such talk of correspondence between facts and objects, Putnam argues, presupposes that we find ourselves in possession of a fixed metaphysically-privileged notion of ‘object’.

Putnam is wrong, though. A realist can employ Davidson and bypass any need for correspondence.

Americans could be perfectly capable of shooting themselves in the foot and breaking their strongest alliances — ssu

I think Trump might come to the aid of the British, but not the EU. Trump sees the EU as weak and unworthy of respect.

I don't know a single person who supports Trump who cares Kamala is a woman. — AmadeusD

I don't either. I guess we've moved on from sexism. That's cool.

I guess I had that wrong then. :up:

But isn't it true that Putin came to power in order to protect Yeltsin? Putin guaranteed that Yeltsin wouldn't be prosecuted for corruption. Putin in turn can't leave office without ending up in jail, so maybe he engineered the gutting of Russia by way of war with Ukraine in order to protect his position? Is that totally wrong?

An infinitesimal is part of a continuum, though. It involves the idea of a limit. I don't think Descartes would have used that idea.

According to Descartes existence occurs in discreet moments. It requires a cause, namely God, to create it moment to moment. — Fooloso4

Yes. I like that view, it's a spin on one of Aristotle's proofs of God. We aren't doing a textual analysis of Descartes though. In other words, we aren't using any writings of Descartes as the limit to the discussion.

In the Third Meditation Descartes says :

For a life-span can be divided into countless parts, each completely independent of the others, so that from my existing at one time it doesn’t follow that I exist at later times, unless some cause keeps me in existence – one might say that it creates me afresh at each moment.

I take it that it is in response to this that Sartre says:

Moreover this conclusion could be drawn from the fact that thought is an act which engages the past and shapes it outline by the future.
— Being and Nothingness, p 156 — Fooloso4

I don't think these two are in conflict. If change is inherent to thought, it doesn't matter much if that change produces discrete moments or comes as a stream, does it?

I read up to about there to refresh my memory. The theme I see is certainty, which is understood as something which is clear and distinct that cannot be doubted. — Moliere

I think the project he sets is to find an indubitable proposition. Once he's there, there doesn't appear to be anyway out of the brain vat except to just have faith that God wouldn't let the Evil Demon torture us with lies. Kind of dubious, but maybe it made sense at the time? I think Descartes uses an old scholastic(?) idea about the necessity of God. God is existence itself or something like that.

Does "I think" refer to the experiential whole? — Moliere

Some commentators insist that it does, but I'd have to go on an expedition to find those sources. :smile:

I think stipulating what the evil demon can and cannot do is a part of the game, in a way. By stating what the evil demon is or isn't limited by you begin to pick out a foundation, be it certitude or something else. — Moliere

Descartes' foundation is a benevolent God, right? The Evil Demon is used to show that logical truths aren't indubitable. For a piece of knowledge to survive the Evil Demon, it would have to be intrinsic to the Cogito itself. Is change intrinsic to the Cogito?

I think of the Cogito as experiential. At this moment, I experience the world around me. I find that I can't doubt that this experience is happening. That I think of cognition as something that's happening does suggest that I think in story arcs.

It takes time to think and to be. — Janus

The Evil Demon could make you believe that. The quote in the OP is pointing to something intrinsic to thought. Something the Evil Demon couldn't fool you about.

As I said ways back, it's about choosing how best to talk about medium-sized small goods. Better to supose that they do not cease to exist when you forget about them. — Banno

Very true.

What we have is a choice between ways of speaking, and hence between ways of understanding. — Banno

You don't have to pick, though. You can have as many theories as there are cards in a deck. They're all myths.

So the question: Must the cogito rely upon a notion of the past and future in order for its doubt to make sense? — Moliere

The Cogito is: I think, I am. Maybe we could show that change is integral to thought. Is that Sartre's point?

'Everything exists within experience' ~ Wayfarer

...this is where we came in. — Banno

Can't really prove that he's wrong, though. We might just be dreams of the Great All.

This was done to exploit comparatively lower costs for production in China. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Plus the price of access to the huge Chinese markets was that the goods sold had to be manufactured there. The US government was hostile to American business as exemplified by the Bell System divesture. There was no reason for American industries to remain in the US and every reason to transition to global entities.

Why do you think things broke down between the US and Russia? What went wrong?

Dude. Putin wanted to join NATO in 2000.

No, you're wrong. I just had extended conversations with both of them. Tones is adamant that his claim does not presuppose explosion, and Michael is adamant that any such claim which does not explicitly rely on explosion is implicitly relying on explosion. — Leontiskos

Do you understand why the argument is valid?

Tones is just super precise in his expressions and Michael is a little more intuitive. Once you understand the issue, you'll see that they're saying the same thing.

With any historical event you can play a game. Find the causal factors in

1. The moments just prior to the event.
2. The previous three decades.
3. The previous three generations.
4. The unfolding narrative of the culture spanning 1-2 millennia.
5. Human nature.

It's fun. Try it with the civil war.

The Dune Universe had the Bene Gesserit breeding program and Paul Atreides. What have we got? Donald Trump. . — BC

:lol: Why do we have to be a Three Stooges movie? Why can't we be Dune?

Something like the Security Council is what humans can possibly do. — ssu

We tried that. It didn't work.

US usually acts without at all thinking of the objectives of other actors. — ssu

The US military was built to deal with Hitler and Stalin. It's since been reduced to limited military engagements with non-state actors, so it's tried to morph from sledgehammer into surgical instrument. It will continue to morph, but not in the direction of ideal global arbitrator. Probably back toward sledgehammer of an isolationist state.

Yes, but I didn't say government, I said system, as in the system that protects the democratic process. Rigid enough so that no one could overthrow the system just by being elected. — Christoffer

For Americans "government" does refer to the system. We use "administration" to refer to the people who occupy the executive branch at a certain time.

The whole population of the USA watched as Trump attempted to override an election, going so far as to contact the Pentagon for help. Those same Americans re-elected Trump. As the US heads further and further toward right-wing authoritarianism, it's not gullibility, it's not childishness, and it's most certainly not the work of one man. It's that the political pendulum is swinging toward something that's always been native to the US ever since Hamilton arranged for the president to have direct access to the Treasury. There's nothing that can stop Trump except maybe a bullet.

Democracy is far better than authoritarian systems as the authoritarian systems easily becomes corrupted or form abuse of power. — Christoffer

It usually takes a few generations for that to happen. New monarchies can be very beneficial to society as the new dictator seeks to establish legitimacy.

Far better is that there's simply countries that tolerate each other and don't start wars, even if they disagree on matters. That would be the ideal. — ssu

We'd need a global government for that.

What has been said is that if a proposition is true then it is justifiable. — Michael

Doesn't that lead to an infinite regress of justifications?

A rigid form of system that can only be changed by a large amount of all its citizens, say 90% of all people need to be behind it to make substantial changes. — Christoffer

Flexible governments survive where rigid ones fail.

I'm of the opinion that a government should be run by only the competent and one way to make sure of it is to ban anyone who can't form policy and politics that aren't for the benefit of the people and the nation. They need to show that they are stable individuals who work as actual representatives of their voters for the purpose of steering the ship with confidence and not malice. If people are angry about something, it does not help them whatsoever to align with someone who wants to basically take their voting power away from them. Sorry to say, but people are generally gullible and stupid and the only way to guarantee that they don't shoot themselves in the foot is to make sure that there's never ever any candidate who can take advantage of their gullible nature. — Christoffer

It's strikes me as very strange that you think you're a supporter of democracy when you think people are too gullible to make their own choices.

If people cannot imagine a society in which both freedom of speech, and an intolerance against the anti-democratic authoritarians can co-exist, then they're not really thinking beyond the shallow. — Christoffer

Maybe. Monarchy is a very robust form of government, even more so when linked to a state religion. We'll pretty much all go back to monarchies as climate change sets in. Democracy is just a tool. It's not a good in itself.

Number of deaths in WW2

What I meant was that the idea of speed running society to preferable changes by overthrowing democracy is what childish minds think leads to a better world. I'm not saying that such childish minds exist all over society, but it says something about the knowledge and intelligence of the population if such ideas remain into adulthood. — Christoffer

I'm not sure why you think this. All ancient democracies ended in tyranny. What makes you think we would be different?

The attitude of Putin towards democracy and democratic leadership with term limits is shown perfectly clearly in this comment. — ssu

He's right though, isn't he? The US makes a schizoid global leader when there's no existential threat to keep things on track. The world needs an emperor. Not exactly like a Dune emperor, but similar.