I'm puzzled to think that this is true, regardless as to whether this was once thought as true.

Why would you think that, that is true? Is that a hallmark of narcissism? — Shawn

I guess we all bring our own perspectives to the art we encounter, and I admit that my personal belief is that happiness is related to giving to and thinking of others. The paradox would then be that selfishness leads to self-destruction, but I recognize my view of happiness places a low premium on self-aggrandizement. I don't know that Trump, for instance, would buy into my view of happiness and I'd be hard pressed to convince him that he'd be happier not being in constant self admiration mode.

No it hasn't. At least not in a way any of us here can dispute. Let's say for the sake of argument that the vaccine is 100% effective. Does that now mean I ought to take it? You've left out any argument that we ought to take things that are 100% effective at doing what they claim to do. Fact's don't simply result in moral oughts (though see Srap Tasmaner's rather clever way of achieving this in the other coronavirus thread). — Isaac

I know this argument. It's the "I have a right to make bad decisions" argument. People are literally willing to lay down their lives for this right. I'm not real sure why it's so important for people and sort of wish they'd find another cause to fight for, like maybe feeding the hungry or helping sick kids or something.

But to your question as to how your bad decisions affect me, they cause a waste of hospital space, a shutting down of the economy, and they result in greater spread of the disease.

I see no evidence of that. I've provided more citations from properly qualified experts than any other poster and most contrary responses have been half-arsed clichés of reactionary defensiveness or outright spittle-flecked invective. How is that representative of a community in search of truth? — Isaac

Yeah, I don't agree with this. The overwhelming evidence is that the vaccine greatly reduced infections prior to the delta variant and it greatly reduces hospitalizations and serious illness with the delta. The great fears of vaccine complications has never been realized. Your arguments, at least when I was momentarily engaged, were general statistical objections that could be asserted against any medication. You've also argued that I am stuck in a bubble that I cannot get out of because I choose to heroically defend my peer group because loyalty to group is apparently my chief psychological driver.

Have you read the articles of association for the pharmaceutical companies? — Isaac

This is the hallmark of conspiratorial thinking. We look around and find those we distrust and we concoct a crime they committed without any evidence a crime was actually committed and we stand in wonder how anyone would be so gullible as to believe those scoundrels wouldn't do exactly as we suspect they did even though we have no evidence.

I'd suggest that we start looking for motives for why a crime was committed after we actually have evidence a crime was committed. Otherwise, we end up accusing people of doing things that never happened.. That I don't trust politicians doesn't mean I get to accuse them of stealing from the coffers without evidence they have stolen, and I'm not naive to argue they haven't stolen when there is no evidence of theft. Of course, if I notice money is stolen, I should probably look to those with motivations and inclinations to steal if I want to find out who has stolen.

So, as I sit here, I have zero evidence that vaccines are useless and have been imposed upon the public to extract money from a fearful population. In fact, all the evidence is otherwise. For that reason, I don't need to identify all the bad people nearby and accuse them of falsifying vaccine data, largely because I have no such data.

On the other hand, I do in fact have significant evidence that people are spreading unfounded fears and mistruths about the vaccines. I therefore should at this point try to determine who might have motivation and inclination to engage in such conduct and figure out who they are.

But anyway, you don't have to convince me that there are bad people doing bad things. The prisons are filled with them and I trust we haven't rounded them all up. I do need to know a bad thing has actually happened before I accuse someone of something though.

these circumstances, there is no basis to make a reasonable decision. What is needed, and what is lacking, is trust. Trust is the liquidity of the knowledge economy, and of society in general. — unenlightened

But truth does have an annoying way of eventually coming out, which will either be when the vaccinated start having all sorts of mysterious symptoms or the when unvaccinated start dying. It seems the latter is happening. The glee I now have in saying "told you so!"

I believe, as simply as I can, Narcissus lived an unremarkable life in ancient times, fell in love with himself, and by psychologists got called a narcissist (the causality is clear), and this we remember him to this day?

This all strikes me as strange, or telling of our times. What do you think about all this, as stated, or am I missing something here?

The only person comparable who enjoyed such a life, would be, to myself, Nero(?) — Shawn

The part you got wrong is that he actually did as he was described to have done or that it is at all relevant whether he actually did as he is said to have done. Such is the case with myths and parables.

Let's not spend time asking why the hare even thought it would be an interesting contest with the tortoise either. That would miss the point.

But back to point, consumption with self leads to destruction might be one way to say what it says. That's a most general statement at least.

I claimed that they don't understand negation. The "no" command is not an example of that. — frank

You're saying he couldn't generalize the comment of "no" to mean to do the opposite of what the affirmative comment is? If that's all you're saying, then I'll agree you're probably right, but that has to do with the level that dogs can conceptualize things. That isn't to say dogs don't understand language or that it means that if they did fully understand language he'd be able to figure out what you meant. It just means dogs have limits to understanding. I could probably teach my dog to gather 1 bone, 2 bones, or 3 bones, showing a full understanding of number concepts 1, 2 and 3. I'd probably lose him if I asked him to gather two times the number of bones that he had feet. I'm not sure that's a language issue though.

A five year old can't do calculus, despite having access to language.

And how do they go about doing that? Is it 'true' that abortion is unacceptable after six weeks, or is it 'false'? What on earth would true and false mean in this context and how would we go about pinning down only one version of it? — Isaac

There's a category difference between fact based questions and moral ones, and the inquiry here has been of factual ones (i.e. the effectiveness of vaccines). In any event, I do believe in moral realism and reject subjectivism. So, whether a fetus may ethically be aborted does have a final answer, but I'll admit it (like many factual questions) is unclear. Whether it is morally ethical to murder my neighbor, on the other hand, isn't a matter of meaningful debate. That there are some issues readily known and others not does not logically entail that there is sufficient uncertainty in the world for universal skepticism. It just means we can know some things better than others.

It doesn't have to admit it. Advertisers have a good deal of success getting people to wear believe Nike trainers are better than any other brand. Did they need to appeal to universal truth to do that? Or did they need to get a few famous sports celebrities to wear Nike? — Isaac

Contextualized to this debate, here in a philosophy forum where you would want to be persuasive, fidelity to the truth would be the way you would sway others. Whether Michael Jordan believes we should or shouldn't vaccinate wouldn't work here, but to the extent you're arguing that people make bad decisions based upon bad information, we very much agree.

Really? So the 'power seekers' are the ones spreading the anti-vax message among otherwise sensible scientists, while the poor powerless government and pharmaceutical industry just want everyone to be happy? Who are these devils? Name names man, they need to be held to account. — Isaac

Your sarcasm isn't even logical. If you think it absurd that I'd suggest the pharmaceutical companies are pure and honest (which I didn't), you can't then submit that it's absurd for me to suggest there are politicians who are less than pure and honest.

You can Google for the names of those politicians and those politicizing the anti-vax movement as well as me. What I can say is that pharmaceutical companies, epidemiologists, and public health officials have primary reasons for existence other than the securing of power. I realize they are corruptible, but a politician unapologetically and openly makes it his primary focus to obtain power. We can hypothesize conspiracies as they relate to the dishonest motives of any person or industry, but, with politicians, we have to accept as point of fact that they are waking up every morning with no other ambition than to secure votes and power. That, unlike the others mentioned, is their primary focus.

Do you take this to mean that free will is required for all knowledge other than moral?

Freedom of the will is a necessary precondition of some human understanding, but not any human understanding consistent with pure intuitions. That which takes the place of pure intuitions operating under speculative empirical conditions, are the so-called hypothetical or categorical imperatives, which legislate in the same manner but under practical moral conditions alone. The former has to do with what is, the latter what ought to be. — Mww

Do you have a direct reference to Kant for support of this claim? It's what I was getting at and it seemed to follow from my very imperfect understanding of Kant, but do you know where he specifically asserts that the "speculative cognition of freedom" is required for judgment or something along those lines?

Which claim?

I don't know what an "empirical claim" is. There are claims. Justifications can be empirical. It's kind of rare for a claim to be justified entirely empirically. We usually like some logic in the mix. — frank

For one, the claim was that a dog doesn't know what "no" means. It is an empirical claim, meaning you are asserting a synthetic fact, claiming to know something about dogs. We know things about dogs by observing dogs and gathering data about dogs. I want to know what it is specifically that has been gathered about dogs that draws you to that conclusion. I realize that reason will be imposed upon your data. I wasn't arguing for some type of hyper exclusive empiricism.

I do wonder, though, whether the claims made about the limitations of what a non-linguistic entity may know really are just analytic claims about what propositional knowledge is. If we assume propositional knowledge refers only to the linguistic understanding of a sentence, it would be logically impossible for a non-linguistic entity to possess such knowledge. My position is not that, but it's that propositional knowledge is that knowledge that can be reduced to language, but the underlying content of the proposition pre-exists the language and exists separately from it, thus allowing the non-linguistic entity the ability to possess that knowledge.

That is, are you saying "a dog doesn't know what 'no' means"? or are you saying "a dog cannot know what 'no' means"? If the former, we have an empirical dispute and need to do research. If the latter, we have a logical problem regarding what "know" means.

Whether you agree or not, the basic idea is old and has little to do with who's best at reading a dog's mind.

Being stands out against non-being.

It's the the answer to the question you asked. — frank

It's an empirical claim is it not? Where is the empirical proof? My observations inform me otherwise.

Let us assume you are a computer entirely controlled by an algorithm. When you are asked a question, the computer computes, but its algorithm is of unknown validity. It might provide a correct answer. It might not. Regardless of whether it is correct, as long as it is allowed to compute, you will recite your answer as well as the basis the computer provided you substantiating your decision.

For any answer you give, of what value would it be for me to ask you if it's correct and to provide your basis, and won't the problem be compounded if I also am controlled by an algorithm as well?

That is to say, you're just going to recite to me what you must.

Must we not assume independent judgment to assess anything meaningfully?

thought: no, your dog does not understand "no". Understanding what another says means there is agreement between both parties, and a dog's received meaning has no conceptual contextualization. — Constance

Not sure how you know what a dog knows. But anyway, if you take my phone and I say "no," how is your understanding of no different from my dog's in terms of type and not degree of understanding.

Our beliefs are objective only if arrived at through reason.
2. If our beliefs are caused then they are not arrived at through reason.
Therefore
3. If our beliefs are caused, then they are not objective.

Is that the argument? I mean, (2) is clearly true, but what's the justification for (1)? Why isn't (1) something more like "Our beliefs are only objective if supported by reason"? or — Srap Tasmaner

This is the quandary - if you accept that beliefs that are caused are not arrived at by reason, you have no way of knowing whether they happen to also be reasonable.

So, (1) I believe the earth is round based upon causality, and (2) there are objective reasons to believe the earth is round. How do I ever know #2, given #1? All I have access to is #1.

Independent agency (the ability to have free choice) I take as a given (compare perhaps to a Kantian pure intuition) required for an intelligible view of the world. If we don't presuppose we are capable deciding before we decide, the enterprise of deciding is meaningless.

One's opinion will be formed, in large part, by the opinion which is used as a membership token for the social groups to which one wishes to belong, or the social roles one plays. — Isaac

And this I disagree with. Choice of opinion is dependent upon all sorts of drivers, perhaps some upon their desire to fit in, others other factors, but in all instances not fixed and a matter of choice. Many, hopefully most, form their opinion based upon a fidelity to finding the truth.

To the extent you argue opinion is controlled by forces beyond your control, your argument ceases to have persuasive value because it admits to not being based upon truth and it denies my responses are based upon truth.

The larger narrative your position speaks to is to give credence to a post-truth description that tries to avoid harsh criticism of fringe nonsense like ant-vaxx positions, suggesting those opinions have equal validity, with rejection of anti-vaxx being based not upon objectivity, but just upon me wanting to get along with my peers by showing them I stand against anti-vaxx.

The sometimes violent peer division you've identified isn't a complex sociological and psychological matter that just naturally exists within each of us, but it is the outcome of a nefarious and intentional political effort to polarize and divide the population to acquire political power. That there is such division over such minor requests like wearing masks and getting an FDA approved vaccine (and the unadulterated bullshit of the "stolen" election) speaks to the power of our power seekers in creating camps and securing votes. It needn't be this way.

That people can be swayed by group identity desires, fear, prejudice and whatever else is nothing new, but the choice of what to do remains in the hands of the people. We're not lemmings and the responsibility rests with us, and we can't blame our bad choices on just trying to get along with our peer group.

So, if your vaccination decision is based upon your wanting to get along with your party of choice, you've abrogated your responsibility as a responsible person.

Apparently, all land on Earth is now some form of private property of "the nation states". — Michael Zwingli

Explain this. Do you want all land to be privately held with each landowner being an independent sovereign, or do you want all land communal? As you've stated it, it's private yet belongs to the nation state, which isn't clear.

course, there have been cultures, such as certain "Native American" cultures, wherein the concept of the private ownership of land would have been considered absurd — Michael Zwingli

Except that's a myth. https://daily.jstor.org/yes-americans-owned-land-before-columbus/

So I'm inclined to pass by the whole question as ill-formed, and I'm not at all inclined to throw in with either side. There's plenty of other stuff to think about. — Srap Tasmaner

This line of discussion wasn't intended to sway your opinion on determinism, but was initiated only to explain my objection to @Isaac's line of argument. I raised the psychologist's fallacy, and you asked for a better description of it. I get that the free will debate isn't something that everyone will be interested in thinking through,, but if an argument is presented that implicates an unworkable logical outcome, that can't be ignored simply because it broaches a topic not of personal interest.

In a free world we’d build roads together in common enterprise. But since we live in a statist world we cannot. So your property is declared eminent domain, the state’s property, and a road goes through your property without your say in the matter. — NOS4A2

What law proscribes the voluntary building of roads in a common enterprise? I'd think the barrier to such a communal sense of purpose would be lack of cooperation, not government intervention.

Let's assume eminent domain were illegalized, describe your vision of how new roads would be built.

the dog thinks, "I shouldn't stay in the road." then it would appear that the dog is using language. — frank

My dog thinks "I shouldn't knock over the garbage can, " but then he does, and I can tell from the way he's now under the bed that not only does he know he shouldn't have, he doesn't want to get in trouble, so he's hiding.

I'm right that dogs can't understand the significance of "not", and I think I am, can you see why that would limit its ability to form complex thoughts? — frank

Do you have a dog? My dog definitely understands "no."

These are just such odd claims that are empirically false. I remember my philosophy professor explaining to me the simplistic and limited intellectual capacity of animals, and I thought then (as now) whether he ever spent time with animals.

Intellectual ability among the species is a matter of degree, not type. I'd imagine chimps and baboons would make this more clear, but alas, zoning laws won't allow me those.

The "fixed" part is just empirically false, but can't I believe that my beliefs are fully determined by my state and my environment, rather than a matter of free choice, and just note that what I read, the arguments people make to me, and so on, are also part of my environment, and go into modifying my state? — Srap Tasmaner

If the algorithm of the universe dictates Srap will believe X, it will be so. If you claim your beliefs are from what you read, that will be the case because the algorithm dictated you would say that. All is determined, even your beliefs for why you have your beliefs. If you take seriously the idea that your beliefs are beyond your control, you have no reason to debate your beliefs.

I place the ability to freely judge an argument in the category of foundational assumptions required to make the world intelligible. If you wish to reject this foundational assumption, you go the way of the solipsist, and it's for that reason I don't find that objection worth debating. It's a universal rejection of reason, and it could be inserted in every thread on this site.

Telling me I'm stuck arguing for X because my ilk just believes that way ends every debate, thus my claim it is an anti-philosophical, anti-rational position.

It arose earlier, more along the lines of arguing that the position one assumes in the Covid debate is determined by political alignment/ social identification and we're only fooling ourselves to suggest otherwise. That is, our justifications are mere self preservation rationalizations. If that is the case, then those informing us of this must realize that their wisdom is nothing but rationalization as well and therefore useless.

I place this in the camp of deterministic problems, where you are forced to deny meaningful assessment can exist but must accept you just must believe as you must. No one can get outside his own bubble and is stuck with accepting what he will regardless of the evidence or logic presented to him.

It's anti-philosophical and anti-rational. It asserts a fixed state of beliefs for all based upon predetermined psychological factors.

Maybe. The non-linguistic modeling Isaac talked about might explain how that's possible. — frank

Why do you reject my claim to you that I have complex mental ideas and thoughts without them being reduced to language? I'm sharing with you empirical data that proves the empirical claim.

Either (1) you don't believe me, or (2) you don't believe the dispute is over an empirical claim. If #2, then we're arguing over definitions and your claim is tautological. Is that what this is?

You miss @180 Proof's point. The moral problems associated with hard determinism pale in comparison with the epistemological ones. If HD is assumed true, you accept its validity and I reject its validity as a matter of deterministic decree, not by force of persuasion by those who argue for it. You can tell me why you're a determinist all day long, but the real reason you are is because you lacked the power not to be.

To better understand, if HD is true, your position on the deterministic nature of the world is the result of the cosmic computer algorithm that forces you to be, and your presentation of argument for or against is just you reciting your required predetermined outputs.

I see free will as a necessary precondition for any human understanding consistent with a Kantian pure intuition, which is an idea I've heard attributed to Thomas Reid, and which I'd be grateful if someone could confirm or deny.

First, even if our reasons are rationalizations, they can be "good" or "bad": not all stories make sense. — Srap Tasmaner

This and the psychologists fallacy, which is that you can't allege someone else's failure to be objective is due to inherent psychological limitations and not apply the same to yourself.

What you're proposing is modeling without any sort of symbolism? Or at least that's the intriguing notion I'm taking from you. — frank

Case in point: in another thread, someone commented to you and you responded that they should read my response to that same question because I articulated it better than you. Such is a common occurrence: that you hear or read someone express your own beliefs in a manner better than you could have linguistically expressed them.

This very idea that you can have complex thoughts that you have not and cannot fully linguistically express means those thoughts pre-existed their linguistic expression. That is, you know what you want to say, but you just can't get it exactly right. That 'knowing what you want to say" is primary. The saying it secondary.

How do you remember that "the dogs cornered me when I went over to feed them" without language — frank

I just do. This idea that every mundane thought must be articulated into language and spoken to oneself is absurd. Perhaps you're describing your own mental processes, but not mine, and surely not Fred's, who clearly remembered "that lady is a stranger, but that young man is not, "

This empirical claim regarding how thoughts must occur pervades so much discussion on this site, it has become sort of a given that then motivates a philosophical position regarding how we're to deal with knowledge, but it's just plainly empirically false. I truly do not think every thought in language, nor is that limited to "how to" thoughts, which seems to be a distinction often made motivated to salvage this nonsense position.

Well, you have touched on the very point: Kant was wrong to make this prohibitive distinction. The noumenal is the most inclusive concept imaginable, and this present moment of p henomenological plenum is inherently noumenal; we just don't see it this way because we are too, well, busy — Constance

I just don't understand what you're saying. If you're saying the phenomenal is all there is, then you're either arguing idealism or you're taking an anti-metaphysical Wittgenstein type stance, but I detect neither in what you're saying.

don't have any theory that must hold sway. I was asking sincerely how one would remember things without language. I'm not sure how that would happen. Like muscle memory? Like the memory of an aroma where you literally smell it again by the magic if cranial nerves? — frank

So funny you should ask. I'm out of town for the long holiday weekend and the new pet sitter called, apparently upset my dogs cornered her and left her running for safety. Appears they didn't know her and didn't like her visiting the yard. I called my son and had him take over the duties. They know him and remember him.

However they remember him, I don't know, but they do.

Man created god in his own image? — unenlightened

Nice.

But I try to think of God as the ideal. No need to aspire to be the guy next door.

It would be such a nice explanation, even if it isn’t. — Ennui Elucidator

I gain greater comfort in knowing that each blade of grass is exactly where it ought to be. Why do you gain greater comfort in divine halfassery?

Does the Peter Principle better describe God's position or this rabbi's?

Flame much?

It certainly isn't irrelevant to the women whose lives are continually ruined by these laws. But sure, treat it as a cute little academic debate while taking the word of fundamentalist misogynists for granted. — StreetlightX

It is certainly irrelevant to this discussion, and I will continue to treat this as philosophical debate, as I'd have hoped you would have.

There is no debate about regulating abortion, and especially not in the US. Abortion is irrelevant to these people. The only relevant debate is how much these people want to punish women for being independent and pleasure-seeking. Again, the onus is on anyone who wants to take these people at their word. They care about children? Prove it. Because every action of theirs has one goal only: to punish women. Prove otherwise. — StreetlightX

It's irrelevant if their objective is to punish women or if they are the most honorable among us. Either there is a sound basis for regulating abortion under a trimester basis or not, regardless of who says it.

Not my fault that you take these Mullahs of American Christianity seriously. — StreetlightX

It's just a worthless ad hom argument. Even if the ad hom attacks were correct it would have no bearing on whether there were legitimate grounds to regulate abortion.

But to the extent you wish your ad homs to be taken seriously, no, there is nothing similar with those who oppose abortion and those who systematically attempted to eradicate the Jews. I don't follow why you ridicule Mullahs, but maybe it's just to engage in a rant against every religion you can think of.

But, as I said before, exceptionally poor posting.

What a terrible post.

I think you're making assumptions. It's not from observation, that was my point. — frank

Sure, and my point was that unless you're going to fall into some sort of solipsism, you have to make assumptions based upon the observations you make. My goats engage in intentional behavior that clouds and rocks do not. The rock does not stubbornly sit before me refusing to respond to change in a literal sense.

But, if there is some philosophical theory that will unravel for you if it requires you hold that goats cannot engage in intentional conduct, and I have to use the cloud analogy to substantiate that goats don't engage in intentional conduct, then I feel fairly satisfied in rejecting whatever that theory is.

Nah, this kinda stuff has nothing to do with the life of children. It's just punishment for women who have sex. That's it. It's pretty straightforward misogyny. Anyone who thinks these people have any concern for children has not looked paid any attention to how they treat children. Except "I fucking hate women and hope they are miserable forever if they enjoy themselves even slightly" is a harder sell than "I like unborn children". — StreetlightX

That's not what the people say who oppose abortion, so you've psychoanalyzed them all, including the women who hold that position and determined them all liars?

This is a really weak position you've taken, which is to dismiss the arguments as lies and refuse to consider them on the merits. I can say that I would object to an abortion at 8 months. Do I hate women?

Also of course this is entirely untrue. Or at least, you just need to substitute one woman hating religion for another. Everything else is cosmetic. — StreetlightX

You're now submitting that life for women in the US is as oppressive as it is soon to be under Taliban rule. This is just empirically false, so I don't see this as even ripe for philosophical debate.

So why aren't clouds intelligent? Don't your observations show that they are? They don't dilly dally running in circles when they come to a low pressure zone. They go straight to raining as your goats go to the barn — frank

How do I conclude you are intelligent and not a cloud responding to pressure zones?

The elephant in t he room is this "presence" that is noumenal that is right there IN the empirical event unfolding before my eyes and mind. — Constance

The elephant as you've described it here is the phenomena, not the noumena. If not, how do you distinguish the phenomenal and noumenal?

We assume goats are doing something extra, that involves some sense of self even if mostly unanalyzed. — frank

I assume the inner workings of my mind are the same as yours and to a lesser degree my goat's. I'm not sure why animal minds should be treated as operating on some markedly different way than human minds. It seems you're trying to sustain some language based intelligence philosophy and are willing to bend your observations for that. My dog remembers all sorts of stuff. I see it every day.