Wikipedia says this about Taylor:

The best account of human life, Taylor argues, must account for the moral sources that orient our lives. Such an account should explain the strong evaluations we make about particular modes of life and seek to identify the constitutive good upon which such strong evaluations about qualitative distinctions in moral value are made. By constitutive good, Taylor refers to a good "the love of which empowers us to do and be good."[5] The constitutive good—whether it be a belief in reason over desire, the inherent benevolence of the natural world, or the intuitively benign nature of human sentiment—orients us towards the evaluations that we make and the goods we aspire towards. — wikipedia

I agree with Taylor here, but think about the way it conflicts with this passage from the Tractatus:

5.632 The subject does not belong to the world but it is a limit of the world.

5.633 Where in the world is a metaphysical subject to be noted?

You say that this case is altogether like that of the eye and the field of sight. But you do not really see the eye.

And from nothing in the field of sight can it be concluded that it is seen from an eye. — Tractatus

I think most Trump voters just don't take any of his faults seriously. If seasoned military officers warned that he's a danger to democracy, people ignored it. This is why it was unfortunate that the media exaggerated the small things for the sake of increasing readership. It all became a wall of anti-Trumpism in which significant facts got lost. It all fed into his persona as the victimized underdog.

At my workplace somebody changed the computer backgrounds to a fierce eagle in front of the flag. That's Trump. He seems fierce and proud in a way that Harris does not. I'm guessing some people voted for that. She's coastal. He's central, if you know what I mean.

The Cartesian outline of the self has obvious faults, so what does it have going for it? In the OP I say that Cartesianism gives us a self that's available for analysis, both philosophical and scientific

But probably the more powerful anchor to the dualistic self is morality. Morality places the lone self on a pedestal. It's the image of this isolated entity that forms the horror surrounding abortion. We imagine the powerful emotions of love and hatred must have a substantial seat and object.

Hopefully any use will be limited. It would be nice if Iran would stop instigating conflict though.

If Roe got re-introduced as law, then you can argue, with some reason that the US is to the left of other countries on social issues. — Manuel

There are only 13 states that have banned abortion. There are 8 states that have no restrictions at all. The rest are about par with European countries, so I guess you could say the US is mostly socially progressive, with a touch of hyper-progressive, and a bit of retrograde.

Are you taking your own thread off topic? — Banno

Could be. Another version of the self is the world itself. If you want to know who you are, listen to what you say about the world. The world is a mirror.

Science is also an essentially communal activity. — Banno

So is religion. If you noted Michael's support for indirect realism, it was based on science. Science bears the marks of its Cartesian heritage

All that silly stuff about starting with perception and the thing-in-itself only has traction if one ignores the fact that we are ineluctably embedded in community. — Banno

In a way, the Cartesian self belongs to both religion and science. When we want a theory about the self that goes beyond art and poetry, we immediately conjure this isolated Perceiver. It comes from wanting to say something. :grin:

He will back a lot of Netanyahu's reckless actions for the next four years. — javi2541997

Could be a nuclear war. We haven't had one of those in a while. :smile:

It's a complex subject. The way it is currently structured is based on a system which basically gives German banks the power to control the value of the Euro based on German elite financial needs.

In an ironic twist, the European Central Bank is worse than the Fed. The only mandate the ECB has is to control inflation. At least the Fed attempts to keep unemployment low as one of its mandates, in addition to controlling inflation.

So yes, it is an Oligarchy - as everywhere else, but it has a very strange dynamic to it. — Manuel

I've been reading about it and find myself confused. Even proponents of the EU claim there's a lack of accountability.

It's understood that Trump will back an Israeli attack on Iran.

I've started speculating that the EU is actually an oligarchy. Thoughts?

Enjoy the moment buddy. :grin:

This is why conservative women have more chances to get the male vote, — Eros1982

Like Margaret Thatcher, yea. I've long thought that the first female president would be a Republican, but I thought Harris would prove me wrong.

:up:

This is hte kind of comment that gets a scoff and a 'piss off' from me, sorry mate — AmadeusD

Oh no. I'm deeply wounded now. :groan:

It is up to each of us to interpret whether it is good or bad. — javi2541997

It's like the Fool. Ambiguous and possibly holy.

Is that bad or good?

Jacques Chevrier emphasizes the singularity of such "terrible children" in West Africa culture, despite what the phrase "enfant terrible" can evoke among European readers.[1] He explores the fact how initially the enfant terrible although seen as a destructive and malevolent figure can often become the savior.[1] This paradox is explained by the fact that the enfant terrible are from the non-human or divine world and that their actions, no matter how absurd, must be interpreted as signs of superior knowledge.[2] — Wikipedia on enfant terrible

That’s an oddly good analogy. — Bob Ross

It's like beer, it's good and it's good for you.

If Donald Trump is a metaphor for something, what is that something? I mean to you, not Americans.

Besides, the idea of superiority or inferiority of a country is imaginary. One bad event and your shiny image can be broken, even if all the people are still quite the same. — ssu

I agree. And being convinced that it can't happen to us is a recipe for blindness in case it does start happening. Humility protects.

But it is very surprising when Latino countries such as Argentina had Cristina Kirchner or Eva Perón; in Honduras, Xiomara Castro is the President, etc. — javi2541997

It's just that Latino women didn't switch from Biden to Trump, but a significant number of Latino men did, so people figure it was sexism, I guess because they can't think of what else it would have been.

Why would you not be a Western supremacist? — Bob Ross

Think of different societies as being like plants. Some are corn plants, some are palms, and some are cacti. Each evolved to survive its own set of challenges. Governmental systems are about the survival of a society rather than about some higher good. Basically, what's healthy for a corn plant will kill a cactus.

Anyone paying any attention to the temperature of the USA over the last 12 months would have seen this coming a mile off. As i did. Perhaps be less pedantic. — AmadeusD

I don't think there was any temperature. Male Latinos didn't back Harris the way they had Biden. One swing state elected a Democratic Jew for governor, but Trump for president. Latino sexism maybe.

Trade policy since we're talking about it. A global trade war sounds like it'd be pretty bad for everyone including the US ironically enough. — Mr Bee

Yes. There was a trade war right before the Great Depression.

One can argue that the current situation is a crisis, or has the potential to lead to one. — Mr Bee

Things seem pretty peaceful to me. Where do you see crisis brewing?

At the very least I think alot of countries are gonna reassess their reliance on the US, which is to the benefit of countries like China. — Mr Bee

The US is a declining superpower, China is heading toward superpower status. For a while, I'm guessing the two will be a stable pair for the world.

If anything starting a global trade war may weaken the US's economic standing on the global stage, as other countries are more likely to become less dependent on the US market and trade with each other, strengthening China's hand. I think that is likely to happen even after Trump leaves office because the US has shown itself to be an unpredictable trading partner. That's not even going into the likely counter tariffs imposed on the US from other nations who don't like the idea of a 20% tariff being imposed on them. — Mr Bee

The global economy is fairly integrated and the US is the primary stabilizer and engine. This is a situation the whole world is creating because everyone benefits from it. Transitioning to a different structure would require some kind of massive crisis. It's not the kind of thing anyone would choose. So China will continue to do the best it can with the US.

I love his soundtrack for The Leftovers. — Michael

me too. :heart:

Trump's vice president leans toward project 2025, which is about removing opposition to Trump from the federal government. Plus he favors dictatorship, so the coming years might be pretty interesting. More isolationism, maybe a transition to dictatorship by the end of the century?

I saw Max Richter in concert last night. He played the album, Blue notebooks, which he wrote 20yrs ago in protest against the Iraq war.
Sublime experience. — Punshhh

I'm so envious! I listen to Max Richter at least once a week. Also Nils Frahm.

Dude took all the swing states. Wtf?

Ok. Thank you!

It is not valid since there are interpretations in which the premises are true but the conclusion is false. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I guess you mean there are interpretations where the sentences are uttered in a context where they could be true. Thanks for your help.

A sad thread, this one. A low point in the history of the forums. — Banno

I don't think so. My experience with logic is with the logic gates that make up a computer's microprocessor. If it's an or-gate, either input goes through, that kind of thing. I never had to worry about validity. :lol:

Wrong — TonesInDeepFreeze

Why is it wrong? There is no interpretation where both premises are true.

I see what you're saying. The climatologist I've studied the most said that this century will see more storms and more intense storms. That's a statement of statistics, so the whole century taken as a whole. But there was recently a hurricane here that destroyed several towns in the Appalachian Mountains. There's no record of that ever happening, so everyone is pretty sure it's due to climate change.

They can never both be true only if they are inconsistent. If they are consistent then they can both be true. — Michael

@TonesInDeepFreeze is this true?

Couldn't it be:

1. The present King of France is bald.
2. The present King of France is wise.

Therefore: Cows bark.

It's valid, right?

The reason that there is no interpretation where both premises are true is because the premises are inconsistent, i.e. that their conjunction is a contradiction. As such, any conclusion follows and the argument is valid. — Michael

You may be right. Nevertheless, what Tones is pointing out is that anytime there are no cases where both premises are true, the argument will be valid. The premises don't have to be inconsistent for that. They're just never both true.

That's the same thing. — Michael

If you have an argument in which there is an interpretation where both premises are false, but there are no cases where both premises are true, then the argument is valid. That wouldn't be a case of explosion.

That is explosion. — Michael

Explosion is that any proposition can be proven from a contradiction. What Tones is explaining is that if you have an argument in which there is never a case where both premises are true, the argument is valid.