Not many of them are truly new, they are mostly either combinations of existing ideas or remakes of other ideas. — Sir2u

I posted that 3 years ago. You have no idea what it's like waiting that long for a reply. Absolute torture.

For if it falls, it's possible that it will have enough force to form a crack into the already weak wall in front of the pole. It is true, however, that this is but the first step. — Existential Hope

You're pointing to a weak foundation that prudence would dictate protecting so that the entire structure won't fall. The problem is that the foundation is weak because there are those who see no advantage in supporting it because it doesn't promote their interests.

It's like telling the disenfranchised to work harder for their paltry pay and to support a system that helps their oppressors because if they push back too hard they'll have even less. It's a hard argument to make to those motivated by fairness over comfort.

My comments are generic and not focused on India's particular history or present day situation because I don't know enough about day to day life in India or where its fault lines are. I just see it as a universal dilemma, where you have to decide between pragmatics and justice. One hopes justice is chosen over control, but typically it's a mixture of both, at least in liberalized countries, which means some semblace of a healthy society would include challenges to the status quo.

On the other hand, critics say that this is a divisive and diversionary action that will needlessly detach the country from a considerable part of its own history. — Existential Hope

Names matter. My mother attended Robert E. Lee High School and was a proud Rebel, but that's no more. The winners get to choose the names: Ho Chi Minh City versus Saigon, Istanbul versus Constantinople, New York versus New Amsterdam, Her/She versus they/them, The Washington Commanders versus the Washington Redskins, and even Israel versus Jacob.

A name serves to protect the current status quo and it is for that reason the name change follows the revolution. If India is in a state of revolution over its past, the push for the name change is but a symptom of that revolution. The battle lines will likely arise in all sorts of places, with the name being one area for the focus, but I'd think too much time shouldn't be spent defending the flag, the official colors, or the other labels, but instead of fighting for or againt whatever it is that is the true source of the battle.

That is, if India's politics are sufficiently oppressive that they've lost popular support, the flag is going to fall as a consequence, and it seems misguided to just stand around the flag trying to hold it high, as if the battle is actually over the literal flag.

I believe the field of psychology, or at least in the study of personalities, acknowledges that the pensive, quiet people (who often find life to be "not happy") are the ones who have a more accurate assessment of life. — L'éléphant

I agree that depressed people are not happy, but I don't believe they have an accurate assessment of life. When they suggest there is no meaning to life and no reason for our existence, they are wrong and that's what makes them so unhappy.

I'd say, do not dwell in the past no matter how beautiful or successful the past was. Keep it off your mind. Take care of what you have now. You can't be with your past anymore -- it's gone. Love the one you're with. This, coming from my own experience of dealing with all sorts of people. — L'éléphant

I think of sentimentality as the romanticized cousin of regret. The sentimental harken back to the past in a futile attempt to relive some perfect moment that never existed, like the time when their family was gathered around the Christmas tree welcoming a new puppy into their lives, as if that moment wasn't as complex, troubled, wonderful and significant as the present moment.

The regretful harken back to the past in a futile attempt to relive that critical moment where things went wrong, so as to change them so that today wouldn't be as complex and troubled as it is right now. It's like the time you wish you could take back those words, continue that pursuit, or see that relationship through. What is missed is that today is as it is supposed to be, not just from casual necessity, but from teleological necessity

Regret and sentimentality come from not believing one has a purpose that is constantly being fulfilled. If we accept that the driver for our acts aren't the causes that precede them but are for the purposes we are to fulfill, then it's hard to find a reason to focus on yesterday and try to run backwards in time and away from our intended destination.

This is my philosophy of radical purposefulness, which is no more or less reasonable than the more typically accepted radical causation theory, where all events are explainable from their cause.

The best leaders know that duty begets duty. — ToothyMaw

A couple of cliches come to mind:

Preaching to the choir - meaning it's not difficult to convince those who are already committed.
You can't coach heart - meaning you can't convince someone to have passion.

This is to say that the easiest leadership role one can be put in is one where one's followers all operate out of a sense of duty. One whose motivation is that of righteousness isn't someone in need of leadership. He's going to do as he's going to do and he's going to tell you to fuck off if you violate his sense of righteousness..

It's also to say that you can't instill a sense of duty in someone who doesn't have it. You'd be wasting your time. His driver is something else and you'll need to identify it in order to gain motivation. If you keep telling someone they ought to work harder because it's for the good of the community at large but he's just looking for a bigger paycheck, he's not going to change his mind just because you said it.

That's not right — Banno

Good point. I was thinking too along the lines of mathematical points, meaning no two points can occupy the same two points without being the same point.

It would seem identity would be more equivalent to a definition, making it more linguistic than ontological.

Where one object ends and another begins is a matter of convention. A collision of two objects though does seem to have an ontological component beyond simple definition.

That is, when a rock hits the window, we observe a collision of two distinct objects, even if we wish to define both as a single room object.

If two objects occupy the same location, they are not two objects, but are one. Location is an element of identity.

Hanover
Davidson, I think, would tend to say that mental state A is the result of brain state B, but that it might also be the result of brain states C and D. Hence mental state A is not dependent on brain state B; and the need for a novel term. — Banno

So you take it that supervenience means a cause but a non-essential cause? My hand pain supervenes with a splinter being in it, but it could also supervene with a hammer hitting it?

The interesting thing about a supervenience relation is that it's not a causal relationship. It's just telling us that there's some kind of ontological connection between two things. So when we say the mental supervenes on the physical, we're saying that if we had two humans who were identical in every way physically, they will necessarily have the same mental state. — frank

I think this is what I was saying above to @T Clark, but one of the problems often brought forth by the substance dualist is that there is not empirical proof that brain state X always causes behavior Y because fMRI results do not show that for every instance of behavior Y the exact areas of the brain show activity.

What this would mean is that brain activity supervenes with behavioral activity 100% of the time, but the precise brain activity down to the neuronal level is variable. That means that for person A who is an exact replica of person B (down the neuronal level), the substance dualist would not necessarily commit that the two would exhibit exact behaviors. Sometimes brain state A yields behavior X and sometimes Y.

What's wrong with "dependence?" — T Clark

Because I think supervenience can reference and unentailed correlation.

For example mental state A supervenes upon brain state B in that without A there is no B and without B there is no A, meaning if and only A then B, but it's a correlation where dependency isn't necessitated.

A materialist would reference this type of supervenience as entailment because they believe B causes A.

A dualist would agree there is supervenience between A and B, but would deny a causative link, meaning they would disagree that it is entailed.

For that reason, the word "supervenience" does not mean dependence. It just means the presence of A and B occuring at the same time, but sometimes caused and sometimes coincidental.

This is the source of the mind/body problem for the dualist who has to explain why every time I have thought X, I have a neuronal event Y, but the two just happen to exist parellel to one another.

These trials would be a wonderful forum for Trump to prove the election was stolen. Doubtless he will, which begs my question: why does he keep trying to delay the trials? If you had proof an election was stolen against you, wouldn't you on our soapbox every chance you could get? — RogueAI

Your question seems meant to prove that Trump fears trial because he knows he's going to eventually be found guilty because otherwise he'd look forward to offering the proof of his innocence.

This assumes that what Trump wants most of all is to prove he's innocent or that the election was truly stolen. Trump doesn't care about that. What he wants is to be President. That's why he said the election was stolen. That's why he went through all those lawsuits, pressured local elections officials, and then tried to block Biden from being voted in.

His complaints about whether the process is delayed, expedited, modified, or whatever are targeted to getting himself re-elected, and he's playing this really well. Over 50% of Republicans say they will vote for him and less than 15% favor DeSantis, who is in second place. It's a dead tie with him versus Biden right now. These idictments are helping his cause. He kept himself center stage for 4 years while out of office and now he's a martyr.

What Trump wants is to be President. He's not in the business of setting the record straight or in proving his innocence.

Years from now in the American lexicon you'll have a word Maga as we have caesar but probably with slightly less flattering connotations. — Benkei

The long history of that hijacked phrase.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_America_Great_Again#:~:text=%22Let's%20make%20America%20great%20again,at%20home%20marked%20by%20stagflation.

Show some fact about your previous usage of "plus" that demonstrates that it wasn't "quus." — frank

These analytic truths are arbitrary, so there is no correct usage outside your agreed upon rules.

You chose 57, but 59 would have been better because the number after 59 is in fact 1:00.

If we're dealing in synthetic truths, we see the same thing. The rules governing planetary travel show a predictable course and the coordinates can be predicted so that it would appear which number would follow next, until something interferes with the travel. Would we then say we're not following the word game because the next in sequence wasn't predictable from the last in that one instance?

Sounds like you're trying to shed the responsibility of earning sufficient money to pay rent, furnish the place, pay utilitities, and otherwise burden yourself with those commitments so that you can be you, outside, free, and able to pursue your passions.

My advice is to do that. Run free. See what happens. Life is all about picking your adventure.

Might not work out like you expected, but who am I to know.

You mean Thanatos Sand and Thanatos Sannd were the same person???

Did a little research for you so that you can schedule accordingly.

Trump's current trials are set as follows:

The D.C. case - Conspiracy to defraud the US by overturning an election - January 2, 2024.
The Manhattan case - Improper use of campaign funds - March 2, 2024.
The Miami case - Illegal possession of classified documents - May 20, 2024.
The Atlanta case - Conspiracy to change the results of the election - Not yet set.

It should be a busy campaign season for him.

My thought on the 14th Amendment thing was that it was interesting. It seems to give a basis to disqualify any person from federal office who has engaged in "insurrection or rebellion," which could be stretched I suppose to mean someone who attempted to interfere in an election. The historical context is somewhat problematic for such an interpretation considering the "insurrection and rebellion" that amendment referenced involved folks most literally taking up arms and killing US soliders in an attempt to remove themselves from the union. What Trump did, while nothing I would defend, was distinct enough that I could see it being difficult to convince many that it was a literal insurrection or rebellion.

It's also not clear who gets to decide here whether it was an insurrection or rebellion. The current indictments themselves don't use those words. Would it be Congress' duty to make such a finding, or maybe just one of the houses, or perhaps the courts. Maybe the journal article discussed that. Seems all academic talk mostly for law professors to ponder over. The way, I fear, we must put an end to Trump is to not elect him. The power is in the hands of the people, probably the way it was intended, and we can blame no one but ourselves with the outcome.

As to bail, I've read that the thought of Trump ever going to jail is around 0%. I'm told the Secret Service has weighed in and declared any sort of jail time would create a national security issue that they couldn't protect. I know you want to see the perp walk out the door and into the patrol car, leaning forward with cuffs behind his back, then streched out on a bench waiting for a friend to come by with some cash to get him out. Let's not think so big and instead just hope we don't see him back in the oval office, feet propped up on his desk.

I don't disagree with what you say. My larger point was to say that it is just as valid to posit a teleologucal basis for a link between event A to event B as it is to posit a causative basis.

Determinism demands A necessarily follows B as the result of an invisible causative force.

Fatalism demands A necessarily follows B as the result of an invisible purpose driven force.

Since both rely on a mysterious invisible force, it's no more rational to accept one or the other. And of course it need not be all one or the other. It could be some things are causative and others telelogical.

The accusation that evolution entails teleology is common, and basically, with some nuance, wrong. — Banno

Entailment is a logical, not physical property, so one cannot logically deduce that event X will cause event Y, nor can one logically deduce event X will occur to fulfill purpose Y. What actually happens in the real world is known empirically, not through a series of syllogisms.

The question then is what links X to Y? Causation is a possibility. Teleos is a possibility. Neither answer is empirically provable.

How hot is the 20 year old and how hot is my mother in this thought experiment?

Also, if I'm important enough in this town to decide who lives and who dies, the town is fucked regardless.

My considered opinion is that when we speak of "aliens", we are speaking primarily of stuff we've seen in movies, which I expect has little or nothing in common with actual aliens if there are any. — Baden

Yet the witnesses only speak of sightings that are very much in human terms, just super human. As in these other worldly critters can move faster and are more agile than us, like they're maybe 100 years more advanced than us, or maybe just 25 or 10, who knows? Maybe they are us. That's the old boring standby.

My point though is well taken though, which sounds a bit narcissistic I guess in that I'm taking my point well, which is that there is a tendency in polite society to say things like "interesting perspective" when what we really mean is "interesting someone as rational as you appear would have that perspective."

That's usually the response I get to my religious views.

My most interesting trait is my self-awareness. I'm even aware of it, which makes it all the more interesting.

I think I just did the best saying. — Baden

Sort of. You started out better by calling it all bullshit, but as others seemed to be offering more tempered views, you turned diplomatic and said you'd look into it, but you won't because, well, it's all bullshit.

The evidence seems to support that UFOs are comprised of elusive lights or dark objects in the sky that dart about but leave no physical trace that can be subjected to further review and they reveal themselves to a select few.

Isn't that the best we can say?

"Ergo there are aliens" seems quite a leap from that.

Interesting. I'm an atheist and it seems clear to me that there are atheists - usually secular humanists - who are essentially apologists; preaching, evangelizing, proselytizing on behalf of godlessness and the superiority of secularism. Some of this seems an understandable reaction to fundamentalism. Even more understandable when you hear how many secular humanists were former evangelicals themselves. — Tom Storm

I agree with this. I think the reason a secular humanist bristles at the charge that they are evangelical is that it asserts a moral equivalency to them and the Christian fundamentalist, the very group they condemn. They of course deny that accusation, which was the subject of a thread on the dogmatic atheist.

There is also a subset of atheists whose atheism seems to be forged by trauma or at least disenchantment, but it seems to go beyond just an evolved disagreement with a prior held theistic belief based upon the vitriol of the posts, sounding like someone after a bad breakup who insists they're over it.

This is a subset of course. Others' vitriol might just come from theists representing to them a form of regressive thinking or a status quo that is antithetical to the progressive mindset. The objections do seem disproportionate to the significance of the theistic opinions unless one attaches a malice to the theist, that he must want to oppress women, homosexuals, and whatever else, and that no theist could hold otherwise.

Of course there are theists who do exactly as these atheists claim, but their views aren't interesting or representative of those expressed here, and the smugness of hearing people state the obvious, which is that the literal events of the Bible didn't really occur and the like, as if their power to discern the obvious is superior to anyone else's, adds to the clutter of the religion based threads.

But to the extent a theist emerges who insists a polar bear walked from the North Pole to Mesopotamia to board an ark to save himself from a pending deluge, have at it with the ridicule

And then there are theists whose atheism was abandoned for theism, who get little attention because it doesn't fit the narrative that atheism is the natural progression of the philosophical mind. I think the assumption is that something must have gotten broken for an atheist to revert to theism, like addiction, or loss, or at least something scared them in the dark of night.

That's a particularly annoying accusation. As if theism is a coping mechanism for the psychologically suffering. If only the theist had the fortitude of the atheist, he could deal with the bright light of reality, or however the argument goes.

And then there is a final subset of atheists and theists who have something interesting to say and who add something to the conversation. That's were I'd think we'd all aim to fall.

My two cents:

I tend to favor a less expansive definition of evangelism so as to keep conversation as open as possible on the topic. On the religious side of things, evangelism is clear because it tends towards a dogmatic support of a particular theology, which does not offer much to discuss by those outside that particular tradition. But as long as the person is willing to consider the problems in their position (like, for example something like the logical problems with the triunity), I think it's fair game.

On the atheist side of things, what constitutes evangelism is less clear because that term is typically assigned to theists, particularly Christians, and particularly fundamentalist ones. I know that's not necessarily the case, but I do think it's why atheists bristle at being called evangelicals, especially when that term is most often used to describe a way of thinking entirely contrary to their way of thinking.

I suppose at some point we moderators might need to hyper-define "evangelism" so we can conduct a more legalistic analysis to be sure we're applying the standard properly across the board, but what I can say (and speaking here of someone who is very much a theist) is that the comments of the sort that say "it's all bullshit" aren't very helpful. Whether those sorts of comments are a form of evangelism or not, as a theist, I can only ignore them. They don't add to the discussion, cause me to rethink anything I previously believed, or explore the reasons I might have for the belief. I'd say the same in the non-religious context, like if someone said my interpretation of Kant was "stupid as shit" (or the like) without offering any more explanation.

So, more than focusing on what "evangelical" means, maybe not enter a conversation if your objective is just to throw rotten tomatoes at the other side. This isn't to suggest that you must allow theists to get away with making unsubstantiated comments, but if those responses are not substantive, the response will likely be in kind and the conversation will quickly become derailed.

There are things that bother me, also. Misuse of the apostrophe is one of current ones; it the apostrophe seems to be disappearing from the vernacular. I think that people get confused about it and so leave it out. — Ludwig V

They are attempting to remove the apostrophes from street names in England, which is upsetting to some: https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/01/22/grammar-is-off-the-mark-for-apostrophes-on-shropshire-road-signs/

In the US, I don't know that I've seen the apostrophe in street names, like if it were Baker's Street, I would expect it to be Bakers Street. I'm not as concerned about that sort of thing because it's an arbitrary street name and they can name it whatever they want.

are they logic, or do we just memorise them because they have been part of our vocabulary for centuries? — javi2541997

Both. Those languages with more irregularities pose more serious problems for non-native adults than anything else, but that might be an evolutionary stranger danger attribute. Knowing who isn't from your tribe can matter, especially historically.

But I speculate.

My mind is twisted in this point... so the correct form is: I have come home and not "I have came home" — javi2541997

"I have come home" is correct. If someone said, "I had came home, " I'd think either they are non-native, not as formally educated, or millennial.

He had seen (not saw). He had done (not did). He had gone (not went). He had run (not ran). Perfect tense takes the past participle.

Regular verbs are predictable, while irregular are chaotic for a child or learner. — javi2541997

I'd just point out that irregular verbs are difficult for adult, non-native speakers, but not for children. They may make errors at first, but it's generally not difficult to distinguish a non-native speaker who learned as an adult versus a non-native speaker who learned as a child.

In terms of what makes languages hard to learn, it's not just having to learn exceptions to general rules, but all sorts of things go into language difficulty: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/learning-the-lingo-the-5_b_997685

When some modern words came into common parlance, such as fax, no one had its past tense form, but obviously everyone adopted the regular form: "faxed". It's less chaotic. — javi2541997

But we have computer mouses because of the general rule that we accept the more modern forms over the older forms when we create new words, but maybe it would make more sense to say I have computer mice if I have two mouses.

I do see why you'd say the Childs are coming for dinner as opposed to the Children are coming for dinner if Mr. and Mrs. Child were coming over. I always liked that joke.

One thing you see in languages spoken by people from many different backgrounds is a reduction in word designators because they are largely unneeded. For example, in modern English (unlike older forms), we say I walk, he walks, they walk, we walk, you walk. Note that the word only changes form once, but then compare the various ways you'd have to say that in your native tongue.

One thing that grates on my ears is the common misuse of the past participles in the past perfect, as in, "I have come home" versus the incorrect "I have came home." I used to hear that only among the uneducated, but it's everywhere now. A point could be made that these identifiers are irrelevant.

At the first glance irregular verbs would seem to have no reason to live. Why should language have forms that are just cussed exceptions to a rule? What do you think? — javi2541997

Some of the verb endings are irregular because they originated in other langauges and then were brought into English.

There are languges with no regular verbs and there are languages that have far more designators than English.

Well, when we explore space, we don't see any Boltzmann brains, which suggests the density is very low (or we occupy a special place). — RogueAI

But your OP postulated there were an infinite number of things, but here you reference our world which doesn't have an infinite number of things, so this empirical evaluation doesn't help us.

The rebuttal:

NPR isn't what it used to be — BC

It's really not. I've been disappointed in what they believe is newsworthy and in the great efforts they make to show their alignment with various causes. I also don't think their reporting is always in good faith. As an example, my son went to college in the inner city and the area was gentrifying, with his low income apartment on the chopping block. NPR came out and interviewed him assuming he was a local resident and not a suburban student transplant. He explained that he felt that if low income housing were mandated, the cost burden would shift to him to make it sustainable, and that he would expect to pay more for where he would eventually live. You may disagree with his analysis, but the way they hacked his quote up, you'd have thought he was Bernie Sanders, sorely upset with the capitalistic system and mistreatment of the poor.

In any event, I take the position that objectivity is an impossible standard, and not even one worth pretending to advance. We all have some perspective and point of view and those biases are inevitable. I think the better practice is to try and be balanced, which means offering competing perspectives without favor toward one or the other. That is a difficult task given the consumer driven market, meaning one shops for news at the place where they expect to get the news they want.

The solution then for those who are looking for balance would realistically be to look at various news outlets, meaning if you want a real perspective, first go to Fox, then make your way over to CNN. That approach might be a good one, but the likely result is that you'll settle on the one where your preference lies. There's no reason to keep trying the competitor's burgers once you've figured out what you like.

Nietzsche was right in calling democracy a slave morality. — Merkwurdichliebe

The criticism of democracy in light of the Trump example is not that democracy is a slave morality but it's that it allowed its leader to abide by a master morality and be above the law.

That is, N opposed democracy not because he thought the general public too stupid to select competent representation, but because he thought it crushed the uberman's quest for dominance by imposing the rules of the slaves upon the masters.

Trump might be seen by N as an uberman, so much a master that he was able to live by a master morality despite specific democratic structures that were designed to make sure he was not treated as above the common man.

am pretty sure that vaping is accounted for in smoking statistics which are derived both from sales records and from health surveys. — BC

Not sure that's correct: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/27/health/cigarette-smoking-decline/index.html#:~:text=The%20percentage%20of%20adults%20who,are%20becoming%20even%20more%20popular.

The question of "what would happen if women became fully equal to men" isn't answered as your OP proposes. It is actually opposite as you predicted:

"The answer: the more egalitarian and wealthier the country, the larger the differences between men and women in temperament and in interest. And the relationship is not small. The most recent study, published in Science (by researchers at Berkeley, hardly a hotbed of conservatism and patriarchy) showed a relationship between a wealth/egalitarian composite measure and sex differences that was larger than that reported in 99% of published social science studies. These are not small-scale studies. Tens of thousands of people have participated in them. And many different groups of scientists have come to the same conclusions, and published those results in very good journals.

Given that differences in temperament and interest help determine occupational choice, and that differences in occupational choice drives variability in such things as income, this indicates that political doctrines that promote equality of opportunity also drive inequality of outcome."

This is to say, in Scandinavian countries where women have the most equality and can choose to do however they want, they choose female stereotyped occupations, leaving a reasonable explanation that when you eliminate social pressures and create freer choice, the biological pressures become more evident and revealed. That is, genetics heavily drive feminine and masculine behaviors, so your OP assumed outcome would not occur.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-the-gender-scandal-in-scandinavia-and-canada

Another way to play is to ask what could logically follow as next in the series. As people respond, you tell them if they are correct or not. The ones left guessing get additional hints from the prior correct and incorrect guesses until finally they get it or they beg someone to tell them the answer.

So the idea is: we, corporate America, will present you dumbass consumers with the options we’ve decided and a couple buttons to push. That’s freedom and democracy. At least it’s not that great evil, communism. — Mikie

Drugs have traditionally been through the black market, which isn't part of corporate America. I've heard that many still prefer to buy marijuana the old fashioned way and not at dispensaries.

The point being that addictive substances find their way into the most restrictive of systems, even in prisons. It hasn't been into recently that a legalization movement has been afoot.

I guess you can say that street dealing is the most basic form of capitalism, but I would think that sort of trade would exist even in Marxist system (assuming it is non-totalitarian).

But the thing is, smoking is much less common now than it was 30 or 40 years ago. — BC

I wonder if that has just been offset by vaping and now marijuana. That is, more alternatives.