As a tidbit, the mRNA vaccine was originated by a woman who found it difficult to find funding because all except one of her peers scoffed at the idea. Capitalism just does better with innovation because stray, crazy ideas have better survival chances. Central planners tend to be thud-heads who resist change due to the risks involved. Usually.

Socialist countries have capitalism and investment capital too. Or are you thinking of Communism?
Anyway I’m just saying they can do it too, just in a different way. — Punshhh

Ah. We weren't thinking of the same thing. Where there's capitalism, that's actually the foundation of the society's wealth. The kind of socialist economy I was thinking of operates by central planning. I don't think there are any economies of that kind anymore.

The AstraZeneca vaccine was funded by the U.K. government and charitable organisations. This would have been the same under a socialist government. — Punshhh

The UK had the funds because they draw off of a capitalist economy that expands and contracts. During expansion, there is an abundance of virtual capital that funds things like R&D. How would a socialist economy do that?

It’s true that research into RNA vaccines has been funded by investment capital around the world for decades. But that is just how the pharmaceutical systems we have, have developed. In a socialist world, there might have been more money invested in more cost effective ways rather than as a means to generate vast profits for shareholders etc. — Punshhh

I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't know how a socialism would handle a pandemic. Socialist economies don't expand and contract. They're stagnant. That makes me think they would be less financially flexible compared to capitalism. Actually, much less flexible.

That seems intuitively true. — Tom Storm

So it would go back to the hand you write with, unless you're left handed? :grin:

That's more like the Internet in general. Jamal has a nice crown icon in the Discord I saw, so anyone who is foolish enough yet on a philosophy site to be tricked into such likely doesn't have much to give anyhow and as such is what you call a "non-target". Bigger fish to fry, as they say. — Outlander

They don't contact you within the group. They look for people who just signed up to Discord and present themselves as say, thephilosophyforum, complete with logos and whatnot. Then they assure you that money is needed.

I think of myself as having two halves and I know the left is the side I don't write with. I think that's how I tell the difference. Is it objective? It's certainly an intersubjective agreement shared by culture - a tool we use to organise space. While there might be some who are confused as to which is which. Those who can tell will always agree as to which is which. Does that make it objective? Of course, further complicating this is that left or right change depending upon one's position or perspective - they are not like compass points. — Tom Storm

I guess the point is that it's not mind-independent. We need a conscious entity (or two) in order for directionality to exist. All by itself, space doesn't have directions like left and right. That's kind of mind-blowing if you're used to thinking in terms of absolute space.

Long story short, I think just about everyone here knows and is aware of the point you're trying to get across. — Outlander

Well that's just like... your opinion, man.

What if that someone claims to be frank instead? — javi2541997

Tell them a "yo momma so fat" joke.

There is a distance between a set point in itself, and another set point in itself. "Up" is an interpreted relation between our observation view point, and that relation. So yes, "Up" does not exist in itself, but the Earth, and the distance to space for example, does exist in itself. — Philosophim

Right. "Up" is observer dependent. That one's a little harder for me to grasp than left-right. :grin:

If someone already mentioned this, ignore it, but Discord is known for scams. If someone contacts you claiming to be jamal, asking for money, ignore it.

Ok, so now to finally answer your question!

On what basis do you make this distinction? Is it a matter of experiencing the world through a human body? Or is there something objective about it?
— frank

The objective basis is 'the thing itself'. We have 'hands' in themselves. How we interpret them is up to us. We could call them "quack and bark" hands if we wanted. We could say that hands involve the forearm. We part and parcel our interpretation of reality as we wish. As long as our interpretation is not contradicted by the thing in itself's existence (I can cut my hands off and they will still work does NOT match reality) then we're good. — Philosophim

Yes, the question is whether or not space has mind-independent directions. That question doesn't appear to be answered by noting that we have hands. I think you're agreeing that space does not have any innate directionality (in the same way there is no unmoving reference point out there). Adding more objects doesn't fix that. So there is no "up" in itself.

Right. Austin was saying that people who claim that all vision is indirect are undermining the meaning of the very words they're using. That's true.

If the claim is that if everything is indirect, then nothing is because we would have no notion of what an alternative could be, or something along those lines, then I think that's right. — Manuel

If that's Austin's claim, then he's misrepresenting indirect realism. Their view is that one directly apprehends sense data (or a model populated with sense data).

I don't think any of these transitions are bad in and of themselves, it's more that people generally don't care about sustainability or responsibilities. — jorndoe

I don't know, millions of Americans faithfully put their garbage into recycling bins, not realizing that there are limited options for doing anything with all that material. China used to take a large portion of American recyclables, but not anymore. In other words, caring doesn't necessarily equal beneficial action.

Hummuna hummuna hummuna

Ok, not fertilizer. I was thinking of Jethro Tull, so you're right, it was about industrialization:

"Jethro Tull's invention of the seed drill contributed to the population increase during the British Agricultural Revolution:
Seed drill
Tull's horse-drawn seed drill allowed farmers to plant seeds in straight rows, which increased the amount of seeds that germinated. The seeds were planted below the ground, out of reach of wind and birds.
Agricultural Revolution
The seed drill allowed farmers to cultivate larger areas and produce more food, which led to a population increase.
Modern agriculture
Tull's methods were adopted by many landowners and helped to establish the basis for modern agriculture." -- google AI

To be very succinct (and therefore maybe inaccurate!) Ayer claims that we never see any material objects directly; we only ever see our own 'sense-data'. For Austin (one of the ordinary language philosophers Gellner is writing about), this is an example of a claim 'so loose, that [...] everything must fall under it. The term then loses any contrast; it is then used "without antithesis".' There would no longer be any such thing as 'seeing directly' – it wouldn't even be possible to imagine what that might be – so to claim that we 'only see indirectly' would be meaningless.

Gellner is trying to argue against Austin (and implicitly for Ayer) in this section about the 'contrast theory'. I'm just trying to get to grips with what exactly his argument is, and why it's wrong. — cherryorchard

I think indirect realists would say (or at least imply) that a person sees sense data directly, by which they mean that back when we thought we were seeing the world directly, that world is actually a model populated with bits of sense data.

@Manuel Manuel, would you agree that Austin is wrong about indirect realism becoming meaningless due to a lack of contrast? I think an example of that kind of breakdown in meaning is the kind of idealism where one says everything is ideas. That makes the concept of idea meaningless because the very stuff that once gave the word meaning, that is physical stuff, has been redefined as ideas. If everything is ideas, the concept of idea becomes meaningless.

ALL of meaning? — Banno

I'm not sure what that means, so I'll just go with yes, all of it. :blush:

@cherryorchard

One might well object that this doctrine itself does not appear to have a contrast, that the Contrast Theory itself would require, presumably, that language should sometimes be used to unify and sometimes to separate. (The Contrast Theory when made explicit leads to a neat paradox; on its own grounds, a language should sometimes be usable without contrast, so that "contrast" may have a contrast.)

I think it's true that meaning is dependent on negation, but I don't see why that would exclude speech that's about unification. For instance, we may first talk about males and females, and then let that distinction fall away and talk about humans. Human still has a negation, which is all the other animals, or all the other living things, or all the creatures that don't wear clothes. I guess the negation is context dependent.

At first glance, it looks like the concept of the universe has no negation, but it does: the void. Could you explain what he means by speaking so severely or loosely that there is no real negation?

I guess there's a sense of truth where it's a matter of apprehending the existence of something or some situation (state of affairs). Sometimes "true" is synonymous with "real."

There are other senses, like Heidegger's phenomenology of truth: that it's about revelation, like something was hidden or obscured, and now it's uncovered.

The analytical approach is to see it as a predicate, even in the case of truth skepticism, where truth is just a facet of speech.

Ok.

They just "know' that what one says or writes is a function of one's biases, not of the meanings of the words. — jkop

You could hardly be recognized as biased if your expressions were meaningless.

The first paragraph is Plank 1.5 of the Libertarian Party platform. Libertarians oppose abortion legislation. This is not rocket science, praxis.

That brings up the issue of understanding the biases of those who step back from science — wonderer1

Yes. That's also part of phil of sci.

No, conservative libertarians don’t think that women should have the liberty to choose. — praxis

It's a plank of the Libertarian party platform that abortion shouldn't be legislated. here

He was saying that our present approach to abortion is more libertarian than it used to be because states can decide what they want to do.

It baffles me that people still think it's a matter for philosophy, as if we can use a priori reasoning to figure out the nature of sensory experiences and their relationship to distal objects — Michael

I agree with your take on the issue, but philosophy isn't just about using apriori knowledge. It's partly about stepping back from science to understand the biases it operates with.

the explosion of human population growth happened as a by-product of the industrial revolution — unenlightened

I thought it was the invention of fertilizer. The global population begins its exponential rise around then.

:up:

Why did Putin do it then? Is it because he would have eventually lost power if he worked on making Russia healthy?

Won't Russia become more and more hollowed out economically?

How long can Russia continue going as it is? Forever?

The circumstances can inform us of how to act, but they never dictate whether an action is right, wrong, or neutral. If stealing is wrong, then one should not steal: period. — Bob Ross

Likewise it is wrong to injure yourself.

Remember, my original point was that, all else being equal, one should let themselves continue to starve because the only action they can take is to steal — Bob Ross

Letting yourself starve is a crime against yourself. You wouldn't let a dog starve, how could it be right to let yourself starve?

Yes. You might like this video:

In Ohio you can just go to the drugstore and buy the paperwork for a divorce. It's cheap. You fill it out with your spouse, appear before a judge, and you're divorced. It's easy

Dali's surrealist representations of clocks and watches as flowing and ubiquitous allow the symbolic to "leak through" the concrete, unifying both into a greater whole that's psychologically enriching. — Baden

Yea, I like poetry and any kind of art that barely makes sense because of that. Life dwells in that open space between facts, if you know what I mean.

thank you