You are chirping and squeaking about chirps and squeaks here. Talk about talk about talk. — Pie

The chirps aren't about anything. They're just chirps.

This protocol swells and becomes self-referential, until it can talk about itself as chirps and screams governed by evolving norms (a protocol). — Pie

Is this a Lovecraft story? :grimace:

Behaviorism has its heart in the right place. — Pie

It's a thesis that announces "I'm meaningless!"

It's just stupid.

Secularism does rock, though. You gotta admit.

"Correspondence theory of truth" is the positive version of the same law, the law of non-contradiction.
I fail to see how its a theory. — Yohan

It's a definition of truth. It's not of version of the LONC.

Can you give an example of where "You are right/wrong" means something other than correspondance/non-correspindance?
I can accept that correspondence isn't sufficient for truth, but not that it isn't necessary — Yohan

It does seem pretty basic, I agree. You can look at people as if they're monkeys who communicate through chirps and screams. None of it really means anything. It's just sounds that are made according to a protocol. This is a more externalist/behaviorist approach. People embrace it because they think it frees them of religion and mysticism.

Yes. Saudi Arabia is Hanbali.

That the territory depends on the map. — Yohan

I think of a truth theory as a choice that has implications. The truth theory you're using, which is along the lines of correspondence theory, is what the average intelligent person acts on. That is, if there is a deer track, there was a deer who made it. If there is a thought, there is a mind the thought is a part of, or however you want to put it.

As phenomenology, correspondence works, but that defangs it in terms of existential claims. If we want to take a stronger, more realist approach, then we've strayed into Tractacus territory, which explains the fatal flaw in correspondence theory: that we're trying to take a picture of the camera we're using to take the picture.

Behaviorism is just ridiculous, but people adhere to it for various ridiculous reasons, none of which are very interesting.

I gather they're not your favorite version of Islam. :razz:

So who were you talking about when you spoke of conservative Muslims?

"A fart, therefore an ass" — Yohan

It depends on your theory of truth. If you require truthmakers, then yes, the ass must exist.

If you don't require truthmakers, say your truth theory leans toward behaviorism, then you can't make existential claims based on true statements.

Do you agree with that?

The people of Wyoming booted her out. I won’t lose a wink over it. — NOS4A2

Good point. It's democracy at work. I don't know about this democracy thing. It doesn't seem to be working in line with my values. What does one do in those cases? What's the correct philosophy there?

I love it. She lost to someone I never heard of, despite being coddled and fawned over by the legacy media, despite being a war monger and torture defender. — NOS4A2

Sure. She's the scum of the earth and everything. It's just Trump sort of booted her out for attacking him over his Three Stooges coup attempt. Doesn't that bother you? :love:

Yea. I was more concerned about the fact that she lost to a Trump sycophant. Doesn't that bother you?

Dynasty?

I get what you're saying. Salafism was first preoccupied with bringing Muslims back to monotheism. All sorts of superstitious worship had blended with Islam. And while I share your distaste for Saudi culture, I have to admit that what they've created is extremely stable and has made Saudi Arabia a sort of beacon for Islam. Though Salafism may not be mainstream (I don't really know how to assess that), it's influence is widely felt. Don't you agree?

The second point says: in a political context the one I was referring to since the beginning) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.
Similar:
right-wing
reactionary
traditionalist
unprogressive
establishmentarian — javi2541997

Yes. I agree the word can be used that way. It's also correct to call Salafism conservative or ultra-conservative. It's useful to think of it that way.

Ultra-conservatives are people who hold to tradition as if to a rock in a storm. They're like that because their way of life is under attack, or they perceive that it is.

I disagree. I think you are misunderstanding conservative with tradionalism. — javi2541997

Conservative: averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values. Here

Conservatives tend to be related to capitalism, free market, liberalism, etc... — javi2541997

That's a narrow definition. Look to context to know when you need to widen it.

it does not look like what was once the Republican Party is ready to separate itself from Trump. — Fooloso4

They really don't. Trump is still very influential.

Her sights are set on the national level rather than whatever is going on in Wyoming. She will not follow the current trend of working within the party by working against the Democrats. This is likely to be seen in a favorable light by moderates and Independents. — Fooloso4

Will she become a Democrat? I just don't see how the Republican party can endure as it is.

Taking the long view, Cheney might see the current situation as a temporary anomaly, and herself in the right position to regain political power in one form or another as things shift back to "normal". — Fooloso4

I'm not sure that's going to happen. Do you think it will?

Wahhabism is anything but mainstream. — absoluteaspiration

Isn't it basically Salafism? Why wouldn't you call that conservative?

Saudi Arabia lives in a feudal system ruled by families. They do not know anything about conservatives, lefties, trade workers, representatives, seats, etc... or what we see as "normal democracies" in our world — javi2541997

Their version of Islam seeks a return to old ways. In any society, I would call that conservative.

A Saudi woman will spend 34 years in prison for tweets.

Is this the kind of conservative climate you were talking about?

That's demonstrably false. Just look at most governments. — Benkei

True.

So just stop — unenlightened

Protest is actually a good thing. It means people care. Plus it actually does affect the moderator in question. When light is shed in his direction, his behavior improves.

What does it mean that Liz Cheney lost? Anything?This is something I've been wondering about.

Either stay and ignore it or drop this forum. Xtrix announced that getting an electric lawnmower was a good way to combat climate change. That's the intellectual level we're talking about here.

. I do know that Zoroastrianism allows you to kill gay people where they stand, and doing so forgives your sins — absoluteaspiration

That's insane.

I think the movie 300 depicted the Ancient Persians in line with the old European conception of Muslims as lascivious degenerates. — absoluteaspiration

Funny, that whole movie has been accused of being soft gay porn. Did you see the Doraleous and Associates spoof?

No, now I see my initial assumption of the bad faith basis of your question was correct. — Hanover

I have no idea how you got this impression. Why don't we ignore one another from now on? :smile:

Until the 20th century, Europeans considered Muslims to be notorious sodomites — absoluteaspiration

I didn't know that. Wasn't there a Muslim who shot up a gay nightclub in Florida?

That's why I responded to you as I did. Where was all this ground lost and then needing re-plowed? — Hanover

The guy you banned spent some time explaining how fragmented Islam is. Then you mentioned "that community.". I see now that I was supposed to read that as the global Muslim community, which the guy you banned said doesn't really exist, which is true.

Violence against gay people used to be very common. — absoluteaspiration

I don't think homophobia is specifically Christian.

Surely, after Trump's America, you have some experience with how demoralizing conservative hypocrisy can be. — absoluteaspiration

Yes. It's incredibly demoralizing. And he's likely to be elected again. Jesus.

So you asked what I meant earlier and I didn't respond — Hanover

You used the word "community". I still don't know what community you mean. In the US? The global community? Iran? Shiites?

Is there a duty to speak truth to power, damn the consequences? — Hanover

If you don't, your culture will erode. There has to be a moral backbone for a culture to grow and thrive. Holy people have that responsibility more than anyone else.

, you know, they might be Rushdie fans who are afraid to speak out. — absoluteaspiration

That's why it's important for religious leaders to speak up. It's their job to go full MLK Jr and shout "Let freedom ring!"

Isn't it?

while the problem of suffering remains looming as ever. — baker

I'm pretty happy most of the time.

IMO, fuck 'em. — 180 Proof

Eh, we all die at the end of the novel anyway.

Which burden is that? A la Sisyphus? — Tom Storm

Sisyphus is Camus' answer to the problem.

You mentioned naturalistic philosophy, so I thought you meant Lucretius.

Psalms is from the Iron Age. They didn't believe in life after death, btw.

wasn't referringvto Lucretius; 'recorded' disbelief in state or hearth gods predate him by centuries, if not a millenium or more. — 180 Proof

Who are you talking about?

In a religious milieu, atheism has a sanitary function as cognitive hygiene (practice) or an intellectual prophylactic (theory) ~ anti-magical / anti-supernatural thinking and living. Also, a very late cultural development by comparison to religion (i.e. superstition) e.g. naturalistic philosophies. — 180 Proof

Although it brings with it the burden Camus talked about. It's nice to here you refer to Lucretius as late, though. Some seem to think we went from the stone age to Greece and Rome.

Ancient Egypt was polytheistic and represented all their reality through the so-called hieroglyphs.
We can be agreed that the figure can represent a "prostitute's workplace" but it is complex because their representations tend to be arbitrary. — javi2541997

Astarte didn't originate in Egypt. She's Semitic.

I really wasn't trying to justify anything. I was just contributing based on the OP title. Maybe that was misguided.

They are legacies of the childhood of the species, — 180 Proof

I don't know. Atheism (or something close to it) is fairly old, although no where near as old as religion.

Maybe atheism just comes and goes and religion is the norm.

It is interesting indeed. But I see it as good research about anthropology. — javi2541997

But not religion?