Okay, so discussion is over then, I guess. — _db

I really don't think there's a point. And randomly, this is why I think progressives are breaking up the Democratic party. They're mirroring the extreme positions of Trump supporters. The will of the people disintegrates.

A phenomenological take on reality: it's a product of limitations, or resistance to potential. Think about what reality would become for you if you won the Powerball jackpot. Or if you were homeless with nothing.

Reality includes what you think of as possible.

The White House has stated that its position on this conflict is that by supplying Ukraine with a seemingly-inexhaustable supply of military aide, it will bring about peace in Ukraine. War is peace. — _db

On the one hand, you recognize that abandoning Ukraine is not the best way to help Ukrainians. On the other, you condemn the White House for supplying aid to Ukraine.

I'm not going to ask you to clarify this because I suspect that you'll just continue waltzing sideways instead of discussing the issue.

What weakening Russia means is less important imo than the consequences of doing so, e.g. thousands of dead Ukrainians and Russians. — _db

As if the US is doing this single handedly. Utter bullshit.

Notably, other countries have kept pressing for peace, or at least cease-fires. Why hasn't the US? — _db

And your theory is?

Why? — _db

Because implicit in Isaac's message is that the West should abandon Ukrainians because that would save Ukrainian lives.

I've had it with that idiotic nonsense and thought you knew better.

What a disgusting sentiment. :vomit:

Now consider what makes "Frodo went to Mordor" true, if it is: there is a sentence or sentences in the book written by Tolkien which say or imply that Frodo went to Mordor. Whether those sentences are part of the book determines its truth-value, if it has one, not the sequential locations of any person. — Srap Tasmaner

LOTR is more than sentences. It's a story that's part of the culture. It's an abstract object, like the components of math.

But yes, there's a difference between fictional characters and actual (real) people. Still, to understand what someone means by "real," you have to look at the way they're using the word.

Real" is mostly an honorific according to Chomsky.
— frank

Which is curious given his certainty about truth - right and wrong - in geopolitics. — Tom Storm

He doesn't mean that the world isn't real. He just meant that we usually use the word to render a thing special in some way. Like the "real power behind the throne."

As someone who finds this discussion somewhat lifeless, can you tell me why this matters? What are the practical consequences or implications of 'real' being used in these different ways? — Tom Storm

Since I tend to peddle propositions at every turn, it's about why we can't do without them.

My issue with some of this is we are often not in a position to know what is real about the real. With Washington, for instance, we have that well known 'chopping down of the cherry tree' story, which turns out to be as fictional as Frodo going to Mordor. How far does 'real' get us? — Tom Storm

"Real" is mostly an honorific according to Chomsky. We're focusing more on stuff in the vicinity of Cartesian doubt. Because we're bored and we're trying to distract ourselves from the brilliant autumn light shining through the golden maple leaves.

No, I'm saying that the form of the proposition expressed by "Frodo went to Mordor" is different from the form of the proposition expressed by "George Washington crossed the Delaware." — Srap Tasmaner

Suzie is discussing whether Frodo was a character in a dream that Gandalf had. She says,

"No, he was real."

You know from the context that she's talking about the framework of the story. If Suzie lives in an institution and hallucinates frequently, and says to her doctor of Frodo,

"No, he was real."

We have two different propositions being expressed by different utterances of the same sentence. Again, why we can't use sentences as truthbearers.

You would somehow distinguish between a person who read LOTR as a novel, and someone who thought it was true. What is that distinction and how does it affect the truth-value of statements like "Frodo carried the ring to Mordor"? — Srap Tasmaner

If Bill points to the number "2", written on a dry erase board, and says, "That's a prime number", how do you know he's expressing the proposition that 2 is a prime number?

You have a magic ability to discern what proposition is being expressed in a certain context. Without context, you don't have a proposition. You just have a sentence.

Propositions are the primary truthbearers. Despite all efforts to make sentences do that job, they don't. The problems you're pointing to are the reason we can't use sentences as truthbearers.

so far as I observe, confusing the referent of "Frodo" in the real sense with the referent of "Frodo" in the Ryle sense. — bongo fury

"Frodo went to Mordor"

"George crossed the Delaware."

Both "Frodo" and "George" are expressions. They're both real in their respective frameworks, Frodo being a real Hobbit in LOTR, as opposed to a bad dream Gandalf had.

What makes me mad is that all the governments in the world are taking too late these solutions. — javi2541997

There's a lot of corruption.

I think people with those characteristics are worthy of seeking out and hearing their say on such core matters. Afterall that is leadership quality is it not? — Benj96

I don't know. I'm more interested in health than veganism, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the health of humans or of the world.

In the US, we need a government agency to start reorganizing the way we approach food. What we have is the result of industries that have profits on their minds instead of health.

So you go on my ignore list. :up:

He was just saying that the political entity, Brazil, has no indigenous people. The continent of South America does. No need to get offended.

If the bartender is not real, what is he? . — Banno

He could be a reflection in a window that Jack takes for a bartender.

"Real", as you've used it makes perfect sense in spite of the fact that you don't know how exactly he's not real. The "how" of it is a different issue.

But Austin's insight isn't refuted. Most words have meaning relative to their negations. That wisdom did not originate with Austin.

like idealism and the problem of ‘real’. — Tom Storm

I'm not sure what that is.

And there's deeper significance to the real/unreal opposition.
— frank

Tell me more about what you're thinking here. — Tom Storm

Meaning tends to depend on negation. As Hegel said, a thing and its negation make up one concept.

For example, far/near is one concept where "far" ultimately means "not near."

Same with reality. Real/unreal are components of one concept. The reason a thing isn't real is semi-secondary to the prime concept.

was aiming for the Kubrick version which is more ambiguous.
— frank

Sure, which makes it a problematic example for any hypothetical testing of 'the real'. — Tom Storm

Why? We're just looking at instances of use.

What can this illuminate for us outside of film criticism and interpretation of the director's intention? — Tom Storm

I assert that in some cases, "real" is meaningful when it's only known negation is "unreal.". Kubrick's Shining is an example.

We aren't trying to identify some meaning for "real" that transcends use. And there's deeper significance to the real/unreal opposition. It won't be shuffled under a rug.

Supernatural subtext of King's novel aside (are ghosts real?), is the contrary not Jack's recovered sanity (possibly via antipsychotic medication)? — Tom Storm

I was aiming for the Kubrick version which is more ambiguous. Is Jack delusional? Does he have the shining?

We can identify the bartender as unreal without knowing for sure what the explanation is. The contrary here is just "unreal."

I've worked with many people with psychotic illnesses who mark a demarcation between unreal experiences (psychosis) and real life (recovery). — Tom Storm

There are drugs which can take the ability to distinguish reality from imagination off line.

We can use "real" to differentiate in particular explicit cases - a real painting, a real foot, by understanding what the contrary is - a counterfeit painting, an artificial foot.

But some folk wish to contend that there is a way of using "real" that somehow goes beyond that, having no contrary. — Banno

Jack thinks the bartender is real, but he's not.

What's the contrary in this case?

I also registered. Thanks!

No, I guess you already know I am Spanish! :eyes: — javi2541997

I didn't know. I was going to ask you a bunch of questions if you were. :grin:

Are you Brazilian?

You get your whey protein from milk (from female goats right/ the same in the case of cows or whichever animals whey is available) So buying whey increases the demand for female animals. What happens to all the male ones that are inadvertently born in the process of trying to breed females for milk? — Benj96

Yes, I'm aware of the problem. It's just hard to get enough digestible protein from plants.

and in labs for nutrional value and correct portion of macronutrient, vitamins and minerals. Of course this research can be expedited by investment and positive public opinion. — Benj96

I think the main issue is protein. I get most of my protein from goat whey and peanut powder. I don't have any interest in the taste of meat.

And I don't see the difference here with eating artificial meat that has the same fat protein vitamin and mineral content as natural organic meat sources. The only difference is an animal didn't have to be slaughtered to obtain it. — Benj96

There's no such thing as that, is there?

You're a butthead, so we're even.

I just wanna say: this is the outcome of playing hardball. Any sign of a lack of resolve on the part of NATO would have encouraged whistle britches over there to use tactical nukes.

Deductive logic only operates on propositions. The propositions have to come from somewhere. If you follow a logical chain of propositions back to the beginning, you'll come to one that can't be generated by deductive logic. — T Clark

Sure, but much can be accomplished by using deductive reasoning on premises that are sufficiently verifiable. And so-called "hinge propositions" aren't usually a matter of personal taste. They emerge from your form: physically, psychologically, and culturally.

Propositions can be generated by inductive logic. Following a standard scientific type process, you start with observations, use them to generate hypotheses, and then test those hypotheses against further observations. — T Clark

That's not inductive reasoning. Induction is like when you see the sun rise in the east every morning and conclude that the sun always rises in the east.

Perhaps we should start a thread on induction. It's a fascinating topic. :smile:

..

No one comes to believe things because of logic. — T Clark

That's actually not true. People vary in how much they trust logic. Some can march, one logical step at a time, to amazing effect.

Others flop around uselessly, not to mention any names.

The adventures of Spud Jr.

There's a staple gun where I work that's huge and electric powered, and it makes a sound like a cannon going off when you press the lever. It makes me a little jittery, but then I remember what Kierkegaard said about the melancholy of knowing you're just another person, on another day, hearing the same cannon stapler that's been exploding over and over forever.

Then I feel better.

That's a little annoying — Baden

Into every life, a little rain must fall.

Blnd faith is what makes the world go round — Merkwurdichliebe

That's so true.

Next time maybe we'll just ban schopenhauer1 instead of trying to be nice and just control his postings. — Baden

Sounds like you're getting annoyed with the situation.

A lot of people here beat the same drum over and over. Doesn't mean they're evangelizing. They're probably just trying to work through something.

We should have an "All Metaphysics' thread, an "All Leftist Bullshit" thread, etc.