will note that they stick with the traditional Kierkegaardian view of life being totally absurd without a concept of God — Dermot Griffin

Woe. Kierkegaard wasn't saying that. Where did that idea come from?

I think that it would be helpful to show how the objection is inapplicable to what I'm arguing here. — creativesoul

I understand what you are arguing. You're just wrong.

A better approach would be to explore the implications of belief being limited by language.

There's probably a Palestinian restaurant near you. They're a good source for understanding the situation on the ground there.

What do they think about ethics?

Could you apply this to (Jack believed that a broken clock was working)? I'm curious to see exactly how it is the same... — creativesoul

I don't think you'll find it helpful.

SO do you agree that the freedom is not found in the will alone, but requires a public space? — Banno

Bill can go to the wilderness of northern Alaska and enjoy his freedom. His freedom is indeed meaningful relative to the constraints of a community, but he doesn't actually have to be in a community to have his freedom.

If we want to focus on the logical arguments against freedom of the will, great. That's not going to diminish the meaningfulness of "Bill is free in Alaska." It will only make us wonder if anyone can be free in any situation.

That's correct. Gonna nuke Ukraine because why not?

I think population growth is slowing down and headed toward plateau. All by itself.

The basic idea is that the concept of freedom is only meaningful relative to its negation.

This is not contradictory. It's a pretty well worn path in philosophy.

And yet it is the task in hand. Something to fill in time on a cloudy morning. — Banno

So maybe remember that Aristotle held slavery to be a necessary evil. Giant respect to him for declaring it to be evil. It's a weight on the heart that he thought it was necessary, tho.

This is one aspect of the problem of trying to apply Aristotle to present concerns.

We could also look to see how the notion grew from nescient in ancient philosophical contexts and map the were's and why's of it's progress — Banno

Umm. That's a tall order. Happy trails.

Finding an all-purpose definition of freedom would not be a valuable use of brain cells.

You can explore its meaning in various contexts. For an American take (obviously the most important one) I would point you towards Abraham Lincoln and Thoreau.

What context interests you?

I haven't read most of this thread. I thought you meant you had just given that explanation to creative.

That's not what you said.

It's that "broken clock" is an extensional definition, while believes is an intensional operator.

The typical example of intension is

Jack believes Stephen King's first novel is The Shining.

If we stuck an extensional definition in there it would read

Jack believes that Carrie is The Shining.

Same thing.

But what about this?



The only good trilobite is a dead trilobite as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know. What do you think?

The question I asked above is much simpler and can move us forward in our conversation, yet you'd rather waste time trying to interpret some nonsensical string of scribbles. — Harry Hindu

What question?

Likewise, had British and American liberal capitalists been happy with the czar, they wouldn't have supported revolutionary movements in Russia. — Apollodorus

:lol: It would make an interesting novel, but you'd need to drop the American involvement. America was nobody in the 1910s. It was the British and the French.

The Western liberals wanted economic and social reforms that went far beyond what the czar was prepared or able to accept. — Apollodorus

What's your source for this?

The motives were the same: to open up Russia to Western exploitation. The czar was opposed to this and that's why he had to go .... — Apollodorus

This is exactly wrong. Nicholas II was in favor of the economic "modernization" that was allowing the British and French to exploit Russia.

Well, historians call it "February/March Revolution" not "just social breakdown". — Apollodorus

:grin:

It started as a general strike in honor of International Women's Day. The women goaded the men into joining them. St Petersburg workers went on strike pretty frequently. This one just never ended. There was no functional government after that. The men who stepped forward to lead were not sure how to do it.

Lenin arrived with a plan. That's the Russian Revolution in a nutshell.

No one says Western capitalists were in control. But they created the conditions that facilitated the February revolution, they financed anti-czarist propaganda in Russia, they provided Kerensky with loans, etc. — Apollodorus

They created the factories in St Petersburg. So yes, there couldn't have been a general strike without the British and the French (I don't think there were any Americans there). There wouldn't have been any factories.

You stated the reasons yourself:

but the real engine behind it is the need to crack Russia open for neoliberal exploitation. — Apollodorus

Neoliberalism is post WW2. And there couldn't be any exploitation of Russia until after 1987.

Would you stop squashing the 20th century into a surrealist graphic novel dammit?

It isn't about what I think as I wasn't there. It's about what historians say. :smile: — Apollodorus

I've read a couple of histories of the Russian revolution. One British, one Trotsky's.

They supported Kerensky's socialist revolution of February/March 1917 but the communists (Bolsheviks) under Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin staged a coup in October/November and took over. — Apollodorus

The initial revolution was just social breakdown in St Petersburg. There were a number of reasons for it. Western capitalists did not instigate it and were never in control of what happening.

But you said the Russian revolution was supported by American and British capitalists. Why do you think that?

As I said, I'm neutral on the issue. I'd discuss it with Harry if he's interested.

I'm presently working in a team situation. My partner, who uses the word "fuck" pretty continuously, calls all the patients "fuckers", including an infant burn victim we had the fun of stabilizing. Fucker!

But yes, I don't expect to learn anything from you.

Correct. It's a well-known fact (or ought to be) that Western, especially Anglo-American, interests have always been after Russia's resources. — Apollodorus

The US doesn't need Russia's resources.

It was England's and America's "liberal" capitalist monopolists who supported a socialist revolution in Russia so that they could bring the whole country under their economic and financial control. — Apollodorus

No. The British and French established banks and industry in Russia prior to revolution. The same British and French were preoccupied with a world war when the shit hit the fan. After the revolution, western Europe had no Influence over events in Russia.

The problem with the average American is (a) that he or she has zero understanding or knowledge of international relations and (b) they don’t care about other countries as long as US foreign policy serves the perceived interests of America - which are usually the interests of the political and economic establishment rather than of the American people. — Apollodorus

The problem with the average non-American is that they take their anti-American angst as a sign of insight, when it's really their own psychic shit projected out like a fucking global comic book. All of you idiots do it.

If they maintain bases all over the world, there isn't a measurable decrease in power. — Manuel

So post WW2, the British had a global military presence, just like they had for the preceding century, but they were in decline. A global presence does not indicate aggression.

The US is still a great power, but it's in decline because it has neither the will nor the means to maintain its position.

The US has been the world's peace keeper since WW2. As it declines, there will be turmoil.

That's a pretty standard political analysis. I'm kind of confused that you don't understand it.

That's comparing the US military to all the other ones in the world. Has the budget for the Pentagon gone down? — Manuel

So you're reading that as a sign of American aggression in the present, instead if the result of global conditions throughout the 20th Century, which is what it really is.

What does China emerging as the bigger market have to do with Russia's plan's with Ukraine? Russia's power has vastly diminished since the USSR.

I don't know how this has anything to do with the crisis in Ukraine. — Manuel

You're not making much sense to me at this point.

Yea?

Refusing to cooperate by not sending more weapons — Manuel

That's not going to accomplish a whole lot.

Is wanting to stop escalations to a potential nuclear catastrophe funny somehow? — Manuel

If that's where we are, there's not a damn thing Europe can do about it.

If you weren't so hell bent on seeing the world through the lens of the Cuban missile crisis, you might notice the plethora of signs that the USA is in decline. Putin noticed it. That's why he's preparing to invade Ukraine.

smh

But I think there should be at least some attempts by a few EU countries to stop this inertia, — Manuel

Yea, like what? :rofl:

If someone says "the limits of my language mean the limits of my world" is this assertion self contradictory?

What is the pov of the assertion? I'm asking you because you're mentally flexible. You could probably see it better than me.

I don't see how this answers my question. I entertained you with your silly question, so I'm waiting on you to return the favor.

When you say that your language limits your thoughts, are you saying that you don't have the freedom to learn new words and new ways of expressing yourself? Are you saying that pre-language babies are more free than you are? — Harry Hindu

First of all, I'm neutral on the question. I'm just exploring the implications.

I'm starting with the assumption that my beliefs are limited by the limits of my language.

Why some fucker would assert that is a different topic. Maybe we could start a thread:

Why do some fuckers believe the limits of their languages are the limits of their worlds?

If the limits of my language mean the limits of my world, it means I do not have freedom of thought. It means there are things I'm bound to believe simply because that's how my language structures my world.

If all that is true, what is a philosophical debate? What's actually happening with philosophy?

If Putin hadn't come to power in 1999, Russia would now be part of the EU and do as ordered by Brussels, whilst its vast resources (oil, gas, aluminium, gold, etc.) would be exploited by the likes of American Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and others that are already in next-door Kazakhstan. — Apollodorus

I agree. There really are human rights concerns, but the real engine behind it is the need to crack Russia open for neoliberal exploitation. The notion that naive idealism is up against realpolitik here is overlooking this.

then I'll say that what it means is a strange form of solipsism where reality is only the use of some language. — Harry Hindu

Yea. I think that captures the flavor of the situation, and what's really going on with the OP.

So the contents of this solipsistic reality would be only scribbles and spoken sounds. — Harry Hindu

Language is more than scribbles and sounds, ya know.

No you don't. Just jump right in there and answer.

Can propositions exist independently of sentences? If so, how? — Harry Hindu

Did you see that movie Arrival? If you haven't, I won't spoil it, but it's related to this question.

“the limits of my language mean the limits of my world”. What does this mean to you?

What is the content of a sentential utterance? And is it sentential? — bongo fury

I would say the the utterance of a sentence expresses a proposition. I don't know what the second question means exactly. We might use sentences to identify propositions, or it's the object of a that clause: "It's true that..."

Do you know anything about the data/information idea?

Plus, if you want to talk to a reliable source, Nagase is a good teacher. Haven't seen him lately tho.

This weed isn't helping your philosophy skills. Change to a different strain.