When can we drop extra support for the structurally disadvantaged? — unenlightened

Affirmative action essentially forces social change by giving minority individuals the chance to start their own dynasties. Just as installing the first black SCOTUS judge won't change anything concrete, but it will change the expectations of young black girls, affirmative action changes people's assumptions.

I'm sorry you didn't read Thurgood Marshall's comments. They're helpful in understanding the outlook of the world that first embraced affirmative action. It's not my world, and all the more, it most definitely is not yours.

I think if you look at Thurgood Marshall's comments on affirmative action, you'll see that he didn't think it was supposed to last forever. It's not racist to ask if we have arrived at the point where it can be dropped.

Affirmative action is a tool for social engineering. It's from a bygone age which I associate with the civil rights movement. I'm sad because it seems like that age was more optimistic. 'We can fix this problem,' they thought.

Our day is relatively more brutal and close to nature. 'Let nature make the decisions, and let the chips fall where they may.' It comes down to where you see the limits of our power and wisdom.

Do you understand the theory that we might be in a black hole?

I’d chime in to say the US isn’t a direct democracy and wasn’t designed to be either. The founding fathers were wary of the common man’s ability to vote and wanted to protect citizens from the “tyranny of the majority.”obviously if people don’t have trust in the voting system then the whole thing falls apart. But I personally don’t see a lot of reason to worry-at the end of the day I think most people will reason their way through and we will see Hagel’s dielectric at work. — Paulm12

I agree.

The problem isn't external to the system, the problem is the system itself. It's not like some foreign agent invaded the US and bypassed all its laws - most of these developments went through the perfectly legal process so nobly enshrined by the Constitution. — _db

Yes. The pendulum swings back and forth between conservative and liberal. Both outlooks are valuable and they both have dark sides.

Give it time. It will swing back the other way eventually, although the SCOTUS is a long term procession. It will take decades to recover from the present conservative domination of the court.

. I do think, but that is my attitude in general, that such things are better settled in debate — Tobias

You're referring here to what he said about Christians. That tells me all I need to know about you.

Unbounded hostility has distorted my thinking at times, so I have some understanding of how it works. Unbounded hostility comes from neurosis or leads that way (probably both, in a tail-chasing circle). For one's own mental health, one does well to derail it. — Bitter Crank

I assumed he was in the middle of a crisis because the last time I felt that way, I was.

This was educational. Some of you put up with him because he expressed what you yourselves felt. Wow. I had no idea so many people are like that.

I didn't get to see the intelligent part. All I saw was one cringy post after another.

More to the point, if a student's coach or mentor has strong religious inclinations, this can reflect in how he treats his students, — baker

The coach initially prayed alone on the field after the game. Over time people from both teams would join him. For reasons you might not understand, I find that to be touching and very appropriate, and I'm an atheist. I most definitely would have joined them because of the symbolism of it.

On the contrary. It was the Church who was in favor of the separation between Church and State. The Church had good foresight: this separation is actually in the Church's favor. It's because of this formal separation that the State (and outsiders to the Church) are not allowed to interfere in matters of religion. — baker

No. The motive is to maintain peaceful relations between different religious groups. If one denomination is allowed to take public funds or use governmental power, discord will ensue.

Oooo. That hurts. As much as anyone streelight represented what is best in the forum. — T Clark

No. He didn't.

We have, as have other species. The biggest changes emerge rather quickly, instead of slowly over long stretches of time, as is often believed. — Manuel

I read that they've looked for a mutation that would explain what happened to our species 50 to 60 thousand years ago. They haven't found one yet. That has spurred speculation about alternatives to mutation to explain it.

We could conceivable go through another mutation that endows us with some different mental faculty. It is possible — Manuel

I don't think it would necessarily require a successful mutation. Hunter gatherers who are exposed to numbering, time measurement, and maps make the leap to understanding. It may be that there are people among us now who grasp or sense things others don't, we just haven't encountered the right circumstances to bring those oddities out into the open and see them as strengths.

Interesting biases we each have. :grin:

I believe we have a rather rigidly determined nature and this is what allows us to view the world we we do. But as a consequence, others aspects of the world, we don't have access to. — Manuel

I think there's reason to believe we've undergone change in the past. We might be more malleable than you think.

Turns out not many people care all that much. If you want an abortion, hop on a bus. It's not that hard.

I respect your point of view. I think there are ways the Russians could have won Ukraine's friendship if that's what they wanted. I think there were ways other than invading repeatedly to establish close ties. Don't you agree?

Keep in mind that the models Isaac and I are referring to are weightings in neural networks. — Banno

That's just theoretic, so don't put too much weight on your weightings.

Vive la résistance

Continental philosophy. It may have something to do with the water in Europe. — Joshs

It probably doesn't have lead in it. That's our special ingredient. With a sprinkle of asbestos.

That's easy for you to say. :razz:

Except for Heidegger , Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Derrida, Nietzsche, and a host of other phenomenologists and postmodernist philosophers. — Joshs

Great. What are their assessments of the ontology of propositions?

Didn't say he did. I said the Stoics (and others), who were walking the Earth long before before the Holy Spirit or whoever it was magically impregnated Mary, taught values taught by Jesus centuries later. — Ciceronianus

There are some unique features to the kind of preaching Jesus did. He and others like him were probably connected to desert dwelling, apocalyptic Essenes. It can be seen as a response to a crisis within Judaism in Jerusalem. The message is about authenticity versus false spirituality (as shows up in the condemnation if the Pharisees.) It's a dramatic turn inward, away from society and whatever it holds to be virtuous to the love one finds in one's heart.

Christianity later absorbed every religious view in its domain. Don't let that cause you to overlook the beauty and profoundness of its purely Jewish origin.

The same could be said of idealism/anti-realism. — Michael

True.

Then as a reductio ad absurdum it would appear that my argument proves Platonic realism (of truth-bearers). — Michael

We could borrow from philosophy of math because it's the same issue. Here is an SEP article about math ontology.

Alternatively, perhaps that it deduces Platonic realism (of truth-bearers) is a reductio ad absurdum to prove anti-realism? — Michael

Platonic realism isn't obviously absurd. It's just not fashionable.

But the movie will happen... — ssu

No doubt.

Then as a reductio ad absurdum it would appear that my argument proves Platonic realism. — Michael

:scream:

Of course, as this is America, the movie will try to portray everything as very "presidential", not as chaotic and mindless as reality actually was. — ssu

I don't think so. He'll always be our manic clown.

They exist as abstract objects. The set of all non-penguins exists whether anybody ever refers to it or not. I guess it's part of a logical landscape. They don't exist in time, in other words. They don't age.
— Tate

This sounds like Platonic realism. — Michael

I guess you could take it that way. You don't have to.

But then if they're "residents of human thought" then presumably they don't exist when not thought? — Michael

Things that only exist when thought are called mental objects. The taste of your breakfast was a mental object. It doesn't exist when you aren't thinking about it.

You and I can't agree on mental objects because yours aren't available to me. This points to what's at stake if you reject propositions as abstract.

It's like so many avenues in philosophy: pick your poison.

I'm not ruling out propositions, I'm questioning what it means for a proposition to exist. Do propositions exist when nothing is said? Do propositions exist when nothing is thought? If they do then it strikes me as Platonic realism. Is that what you're arguing for? — Michael

They exist as abstract objects. The set of all non-penguins exists whether anybody ever refers to it or not. I guess it's part of a logical landscape. They don't exist in time, in other words. They don't age.

I personally wouldn't argue for something Platonic. I would say they're residents of human thought. They're part of the way we interact with our environment.

You're not providing a meaningful account of what a proposition/truth-bearer is. Is it a physical entity? Is it a mental concept? Is it a Platonic Idea? Is it some magical substance that is able to "attach" to concrete utterances? — Michael

It's usually thought of as an abstract object, which just means a proposition is "beyond" any particular person. I can be wrong about the status of a proposition, so it's not just a resident of my noggin. Mathematical entities are also abstract, so you can compare propositions to things like numbers.

Propositions are the things people assert or agree to. If you adopt an ontology that rules them out, you're headed for some type of behaviorism.

Philosophers don't usually feel required to give an ontology to them.

And what's a truth-bearer? A sentence, e.g. an utterance? — Michael

A proposition.

So which of them are you saying exist(s) when it is raining? — Michael

Truth bearer.

C.G. Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (Collected Works)

think that this is certainly questionable. What is a proposition? Is it a sentence, e.g. an utterance? — Michael

"The term ‘proposition’ has a broad use in contemporary philosophy. It is used to refer to some or all of the following: the primary bearers of truth-value, the objects of belief and other “propositional attitudes” (i.e., what is believed, doubted, etc.[1]), the referents of that-clauses, and the meanings of sentences.". SEP

So, if it is raining then the phrase "it is raining" is spoken? — Michael

Not necessarily.

If it is raining then the proposition "it is raining" exists — Michael

The argument is ignoring this:

If it is not raining, then the proposition "it is raining" exists.

He’s Jason Bourne. — NOS4A2

I knew it!

The last inference is wrong.

Your response has no bearing on the sentence you're responding to. — Michael

Of course it does.

How could he lunge for the steering wheel? Isn't he in the back of the limo?