Fair enough. It seems so to me.

Fair enough.

My point even annoys me. I just can't get out of it, in my own thinking.

I happen to think ideology is the problem - religion is jus the worst offender. Its adherence, not the content of the ideology.

Athena wont talk to me, but I agree with your critiques. She seems to just float above the conversation she's trying to have. An odd approach.

Look, I say that I know Mars is red, and you say that you know mars is red. The fact that we use the same words, "Mars is red" doesn't mean that we both know the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

It does, for your purpose. Perhaps that's the issue... I think what you're getting at is essentially the problem of other minds. I don't even know that 'red' is the same for you, as me.

I don't see that this moves anything.

I suggest if you cannot imagine a level of interest sufficient to have motivated the OP, you are not paying attention to the world around you. This has been a hot-button issue for years. Largely in feminist circles.

Hmmm. Intriguing thoughts. Intuitively, they don't strike me as particularly powerful. The conclusion, for instance, runs against my experience with conversation generally. As someone who has been essentially a linguistic person my whole life (working with words has always been an extremely easy "flow state" type thing for me) it feels wrong. I'll have to think further.

"known" cannot apply except to an S. Unless you have a hidden premise that its known by everyone in the Universe who could possibly know it then I don't know what you're talking about. If all you're trying to say is that for S, if something is 'known" then it is not also knowable, that is empirically true. It is already known. That has nothing to say conceptually about these terms.

I don't think the rest needs treating with this in mind.


Or you're barking up a really weird and uninteresting tree. To say "the colour of the surface of Mars is known" doesn't mean anything. Known by whom?

Hmm, i think more the tension between claiming to be an antirealist and accepting there (at least in the sense that "must" comes into it, if not fully logically outlined) are objects (yes, in my view "unknowable" in some sense) which exist beyond our mind or our mind's projections.

Just take my stance on perception seriously for a second - it doesn't mean I can't also say there's a (whatever it is, but lets say..) tree outside my office to which I can cast my eyes. It just means it might not look "the way my mind conveys to me" to some other perceiving being with a different system on deck.

That said, if the logic ends up being such that I cannot claim to know there's anything out there, while maintaining that perception is indirect, I would be comfortable saying 'we cannot know anything outside the mind". I don't think that's a realist position or an antirealist position the way they're being described here. I just assume there is an outside the mind.

This is put to the lie by the fact that we often communicate by breaking the rules. Davidson's Nice Derangement of Epitaphs ably demonstrates — Banno

Having very recently written on this specific piece, I think you are very much overreaching on the implications of it's content.
All it really shows us is that rule breaking can come under the same banner as the rules. Rules work without breaking them - not so the other way. The irony of the Jabberwocky isn't that language doesn't operate on rules - its that humans perceive much more nuanced rules than that which is on the page, making dogma seem stupid - not that language operates on rules. Donnellan was getting at this, I think, in Reference and Definite Descriptions. More explicitly outlined in Grice's co-operative principle - that principle is just further rules for interpreting the breaking of semantic rules. I think.

which will be true in most cases. — Banno

Which cases would it not be true? Curiosity only.

the US backed Chavez — frank

.........................................what....................................

They decidedly did not back Chavez at any time that I am even vaguely aware of, including his initial campaign, and supporting his ousting in 2002, becoming more hostile on his return two days later.

How would you intelligibly posit unintelligible objects? — Mww

I've just done it, and you have intellectually grasped what I'm getting at or your response would be incoherent.

That's the difference between positing unintelligible objects (Kant) and positing a specific unintelligible object (I don't know who...). Because it would be insane (literally, not pejoratively) to expect something unintelligible to be intellectually graspable. That does not mean we cannot post they exist - we just can't pick any out because that is what intellectual grasping would be. This seems.. pretty damn standard language and not gaming anything.

I suggest you have simply read past what I said.

If you suppose that "there is a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars" is either true, or it is false, independently of it's having been verified, you are on most accounts a realist, holding that truth-values are mind-independent. — Banno

Fair enough. I don't quite understand why people think this, then. There's no reason to assume one must be (empirically) capable of knowing some truth x for that truth to obtain. I think you've laid out the logic here for Sirius. Being not good at formal logic (getting there!) I wont attempt to litigate that but I very much appreciate your effort to help me on this one.

I have to say I still don't see the tension. Again, likely because I've misapprehended how these labels apply, but I maintain we can't be sure of any truth values of this kind (Descartes demon and all notwithstanding - only partially interesting concepts there imo) because I think our indirect perception precludes certainty. I understand this to be uncontroversial. I think the use of "reality" is muddling things, either for you or I. I note that 'reality' can have two pretty distinct meanings as illustrating by pulling apart "what we perceive" and "what is real". This seems to me an entirely reasonable thing to say/hold in mind. It also seems to indicate we may not have access to the world which we(sic) as realists accept exists outside of what we can access. My memory tells me you feel there's a 1:1 match there, which is neat. I don't so it's hard to know what way to turn.

If the antirealist is committed to the kind of claim that results in idealistic thinking (in a non-Kantian way) then yeah, I'm not one. But I'm certainly not a realist about perception, so its hard to claim i'm a realist about reality. I don't really know what's out there - I'm just quite sure it is.

However, "knowable" means that it is possible that the proposition could be known, and this implies that it is not actually known — Metaphysician Undercover

Fwiw, this is definitely not the case as I see it. "Known" indicates that some S knows it. It also indicates that another S could also know it but does not currently. Therefore, it's knowable as well. I think this can be illustrated by making a claim like "I know what you mean". Maybe you do. But someone else can too. My meaning is not know "unknowable". Knowledge of it has just obtained in one mind. That doesn't preclude further instances of the same.

I understand the inference you're drawing, and I think Banno's on a bit of a horse when it comes to his own frustration, which I get (and have found distasteful, particularly as pointing it out inevitably results in the charge that we're obsessed with him). But I think yours is an unwarranted inference that extends what's available on these terms to an area unavailable: singular determination. Any piece of information can be known many times over by different people or animals. So I'm with him here.

:up: You've hit hte skeptical nail on the head when it comes to consciousness, I think. You explain here extremely well what I struggle to find words for in the moments its required. Thanks for that.

It is obviously, clearly, not unintelligible to posit unintelligible objects. Its just pointless. It would be unintelligible (and its obviously, because this isn't possible - which is essentially what the term claims) to posit a specific unintelligible object. That is not what's being done in those sorts of theories.

How is this different from what happened in Germany? — Athena

Because, if you read a summary of what happened - they are totally different stories. This weird need to align Trump with Hitler is pathological (not you, specifically).

I do not think that, for whatever it's worth

I think we should be free to self-actualize and I also think the most important thing women can do is be good homemakers and community volunteers. — Athena

Excellent.

Bottom line, giving women the freedom of barbarians may not be the best move for civilization, and I don't think anyone failing the value full-time homemakers is thinking about what is good for humanity. — Athena

Incredible (absolutely no negative valence to this at all).

What are you thoughts on the current trend which says that traditional values are radicalizing women to the right

Personally, I see the argument. I think its coming from jealous, historically ignorant, and ideologically captured fools.

I'll just answer the thing, as I take it that's the meat here: I don't see why an antirealist has to say that.
Again, It's likely my position has been mislabeled (by myself, lol) - I don't think the problem of perception means there aren't things out there. Given that basis, I can accept there are truth claims to be made about Russell's Teapot. Could we know whether they're true? Not yet. But we certainly could. I think I previously confused statements that have no way of gleaning metaphysical 'truth' (i.e "I know God exists") and things we're ignorant of (i.e "There's a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars"). "What we consider real" is probably not the same as "what is real". I think its possible to hold that we wont ever get those two things aligned, because of the problem of perception, while accepting that its a problem - not a solution. There are real things, and if there's a teapot up there, there is. If there isn't, there isn't.

Those weird shadow sculptures where you see something supposedly obvious, and then realize the shadow is caused by something entirely else seems to speak to this in microcosm.

Certainly fair in general - I thikn my quibble is more that 'indigenous' cultures aren't monolithic. Most didn't exploit their environment for lack of technology. There's some speculation in that, but given the way almost all cultures did progress past those, lets say primitive while understanding there's nothing derogatory in that, cultural norms.
But yeah, fair - thanks for clarifying.

Wild. We're in exactly hte same place, philosophically on this one. Nice.

There's some daylight between how we see the trans community being treated. But that's by hte by for the thread. Thanks for your input :)

That's roughly my understanding, yes. Its a petrostate which has collapsed under it's reliance, as best I can tell, on oil. They've nationalized and essentially mismanaged the worlds biggest oil reserve.

The socialist aspects limiting pricing and profits can't have helped. The autocracies can't have helped either - i imagine people are collapsing as a population under the tension between humanity and their leaders for the last 30 years aside from over 90% of the country living in poverty.

I imagine hte US is there because of the strange alliances between Venezuela and Russia, China and Iran over the years. Not to mention drug trafficking, likely a result of intense corruption. I can see why the US is there, or trying to, at least, enforce democratic practices.

Fair enough - my knowledge is roughly the same, except extended over two decades as I've had a family who is a set of friends of my family, 'escape' and return.

Yep, that's fair. Thank you - very reasonable position.

I also don't think it really makes any sense to morally judge someone who violates a country's immigration laws if they are only trying to improve their situation peacefully. There are ways to immigrate to the united states legally, but clearly a lot of illegal immigrants are not able to complete those procedures, or don't know how. — ProtagoranSocratist

That's fair. I just don't think that's the USA's problem. They should come in legally. I don't think its at all fair, or reasonable to post-hoc ignore your laws to be 'nice'.

DACA was good. But its been weaponized. If you're in the US illegally, get your shit together. I can't see any argument that would deny the US the right to remove a criminal who's been there for 40 years and never got their papers together, despite DACA.

Now comes comments about enforcement tactics. I presume we're closerr there than anywhere else in this. But I also assume we have different 'facts' due to informational bottlenecks, echo chambers etc.. (i'm joking - it may not be worth wading into that, lol).

Going in reverse, because its easier: Yeah, I agree. Have said so. Our best info is the best way to reason. When we don't have good info, I entertain all comers.

I agree, something 'between us and reality' is fraught, unless one takes simulation seriously and defines reality in a super-restrictive and awkward way. But my view is that in any case we might end up finding out is 'true', that is natural. There can't really be non-natural reality which I assume is hte contradiction you note. I didn't mean to put that forward. I agree with essentially all you say.

The comment was to illustrate that one can accept naturalism, and still reject strict materialism i guess. Doesn't seem like we disagree.

But the notion that all we know is found by perception if fraught with issues, peripheral to the question of what is real. It is a mistake to equate what we perceive with what is real. — Banno

Mate, I followed it. I didn't agree with you (or Austin, as it has since turned out).
I agree, it's a mistake to equate what we perceive with what is real. I can't see the disagreement anymore.

Fitch shows that the antirealist cannot consistently maintain both that all truths are knowable and that there are any unknown truths; the antirealist must either accept omniscience, accept unknowable truths, or abandon the unrestricted knowability thesis. — Banno

Are you able to explain in non-formal terms how this works?

There doesn't seem to be any tension whatsoever between saying "there are things we can't know" and reality.
I also don't understand how an antirealist is committed to saying all truths are knowable. That said, my understanding (or, probably more properly my ill-labeled position) is that an antirealist has to assume there are truths we don't know. So am more than happy to have it explained to me like I'm not following - cause this time i'm not lol. I don't know Fitch.

It seems to me that "direct" and "indirect" do not have a determinate application in the context of perception. — Ludwig V

I suppose this, somewhat, rests on something Banno's type would say v something I would say:

"When you look at a tree you see a tree".

So much seems true. But I would say...

"You factually do not see something "out there"". You see a tree, because that's what you see, we call a tree. Not because that's the same thing as what you cast your eyes upon. Something something ding en sich.

You see something in your mind (or rather, generated by it). This is what I mean when I say indirect. It may be that there is no appreciable difference between the two - looking through a dark glass doesn't necessarily have you seeing something 'untrue'. But To suggest that we see the world undistorted seems to me something which can be set aside without much trouble. I've definitely had to drop aspects of these thoughts over the last year or so though, for the reason set out in the last two comments we made to each other: I don't think the world exists in the mind. I just don't see a problem with accepting there is a real world, and a world of perception - whatever their closeness in terms of identity.

Do they distort reality? In one sense yes, in another sense no. — Ludwig V

I don't think 'distort' anything on the basic premises here. Closing ones eyes simply has us seeing the inside of our eyelids. Putting on noise-cancelling headphones simply has us hearing a restricted selection of the sounds we might otherwise hear. The same as going into one's car, to some degree. Its not the same as, for instance, an inability to see the frequency we call red. That's where the interesting stuff comes in, and where I've truly loved Banno's comments over the couple of years i've been here.

Trans is a 'true' identity, and has existed historically everywhere. — Jeremy Murray

Not quite. 'trans' hasn't existed many places at all. Most instances quoted are, in fact, torturous attempts to relitigate instances of historical homophobia. What's happening now isn't too far off, as you've noted elsewhere. Most trans youth resile into being gay at puberty.

What I meant by true is 'verifiable'. Claiming to be trans is nonsense, on it's face. Not that it can't mean anything at all socially, but on it's face, its like claiming to be a rock. Your second point is taken, and the sudden drop in identification in the last 18 months seems to suggest something along those lines.

Patently untrue. The definition of a woman as an 'adult human female' is not false in any sense of the word false. This entire post just prevaricates and ignores the problem.

It may be uncomfortable, and that's fine. It's not exactly the one I would use, simply because I'm happy to call polite, non-imposing people what they want to be called. That would require me to violate that definition.

So, let's actually get to some meat, and point out where what you're saying is entirely bogus:

So, are transwomen women? Well, if a transwoman is someone who identifies as a woman but would not be considered one by a biologist in the grips of the definist fallacy....then some of them might be, and some of them might not be. It depends on whether they answer to the concept of a woman - a concept that is not amenable to definition and that biologists are not authorities about. — Clarendon

"if" does so much lifting, that you've done nothing more than anyone else in this thread to even broach the topic. You're saying in the bolded that you simply take self-identity as rote, or alternately that there is no answer. So be it. But that's bollocks and I'm sure you know it.

The concept of a woman is either defined, or meaningless. I don't care which. Female does the job I need it to do.

Ok Ucarr.

Wherever we encounter indigenous peoples they all say the same thing, They revere their environment and seek to live in harmony with it. They respect their environment and natural balance and inherent wisdom of the animals and plants they live alongside. — Punshhh

They also tend to engage in murderous cultural norms, sexual assault, xenophobia and plenty of other pretty ridiculous things. The Noble Savage concept should have died a century ago. Rousseau is perhaps the single worst thing for thinking about indigenous cultures of the 20th century. Its a weird European nonsense.

alright, put that way, i think i can explain what i mean: the immigration policies by Obama and Biden are also xenophobic, but the official campaign rhetoric with liberal presidents tends to be less so. I also found that Biden acting against tiktok was also xenophobic and i personally thought it was just stupid and divisive...my understanding of the word is that it either means fear of outside influence or foreigners, this is the etymn online deconstruction: — ProtagoranSocratist

Hmm, ok, cool thank you. That's hugely clarifying.

Is your issue that there are secure borders? I 'm not trying to corner you there; I take 'secure' to mean enforced as per immigration laws. I guess I'm wondering where in that there xenophobia comes from - and I'm having to take it back to the fact that entrants must be legal? I assume that's wrong, so would appreciate correction.

borders themselves are also xenophobic — ProtagoranSocratist

This is key, so thank you. We do not have any common ground here. This now says all we need in terms of disagreement, but the discussion is fun anyway to me.

Overall, i find such notions to be unfounded because clearly more predatory and criminal activity is committed by people who are already living in the country. — ProtagoranSocratist

That's fair. But if there is a policy which would prevent X type of offence being committed (or offences by X group), I want that policy (generally). And if that policy is simply enforcing existing laws, I can't complain about it. We do not have males in female spaces largely because that group commits certain crimes. Not all, not even most. A sliver, at best. But we stil have that policy and enforce it heartily. Most people just do it. Not illegally entering a country should be the same.

For me, the issue was that a huge swathe of hte public decided to rally to prevent the enforcement of existing laws and that was for decades. Despite the policies of Obama and Biden. I absolutely agree the rhetoric and political delivery is softer in those administrations - Im unsure that's good. As noted though, if this goes back to borders being 'xenophobic', I cannot understand that and we're good :) lol

You've been evaluated. If they are non sequiturs or spurious, there's nothing to 'analyze'. I suggest that is the case. It is an incoherent request for something which - apparently, you don't actually want. That is because I have quite clearly given you my position, and you just walk away.

But it is what the anti-realist (idealist) makes of this mundane fact that bothers me. — Ludwig V

Definitely. It's taken me a while to realise that its required to claim antirealism. It makes me very uncomfortable as I need to push back hard on the likes on Banno claiming that perception is direct.

It looks like I've had a comment or two removed. Unsure - but I can't make sense of this exchange as it sits lol.

I think laughing is still good.

I see no good reason to think anything unnatural exists. This is not an expression of certainty - I'm open to having this theory challenged and defeated. But the mere possibility it is false is not a defeater. — Relativist

I'm not really seeing how this runs against anything else said though - anything discovered would ne 'natural'. If there is some 'non-physical' reality of some kind, or some sort of film between us and reality that necessarily negates the objectivity of what we see, that is also natural.
So, your point is taken, but I think claiming its on 'naturalistic' grounds is a bit sus.

Our knowledge of the world is in our heads, and that is (in a sense) made up - even though it corresponds to reality. — Relativist

These sorts of thoughts are why I've given the above response. Curious...

You'll need to explain why those policies (which are standard US immigration polices, enforced most harshly by Obama) are 'xenophobic'.

It seems to me that would be an unavailable argument. But I would be fine hearing why I'm wrong. I suggest that copping out in the way you have is essentially ignoring the question. Which isn't about Trump. It's about how you get to 'xenophobic' with any given data (i.e speech, acts, policies etc..).

You're more than welcome to the cop out. I am not trying to goad you, but letting this slide on the grounds of 'we're talking past each other' is not tenable.

All three statements here are essentially non sequiturs to one another.

The fourth, addended, seems to make less sense than the others.

True, but I think you need something more than but-for reasoning to establish such a thesis. — Leontiskos

I don't think so myself.

I feel as if you're trying to hold back the tide with a sand castle. The water creeps in at every point, and therefore so many different questions pop up: — Leontiskos

There are no questions popping up for one who understands the position. The answer to all of them:
It makes me morally comfortable. However, your first bullet point is, I think, absurd. I said I would use explicitly rationality to try to get people to act in certain ways, rather htan moral reasoning. I am quite sure I fail constantly, lol.

Part of the crux is that every reflective person cares about the way that other people act, given that we are social beings who live in social arrangements. So I don't think a move like, "I just don't care what other people do" holds water (whether or not you have been claiming that per se). Now take a second premise: coercion is generally inappropriate (or immoral, if you like). With those two premises in hand, obviously we would like to be able to use rational persuasion in the moral sphere, because it would allow us to influence the actions of others without coercing them.

I don't know if you disagree with much of that? — Leontiskos

Yeah pretty much all of it. Inappropriate doesn't say 'wrong' to me.

So do you mean that Donald Trump is just saying/doing that anti-immigrant stuff to placate voters and grasp at power? He's certainly after both of those things, but he has been complaining about Chinese people and Latin Americans for years, i just don't buy into the perception that he doesn't believe his own xenophobia and/or racism. — ProtagoranSocratist

I would need to see something you think its 'xenophobic' rather than enforcing reasonable immigration laws (no comments (yet) on enforcement tactics). You say 'hes been complaining about'. I don't quite know what you're talking about yet, so I'll wait for examples.

Been in the lounge lately? I am not being all that serious, because I'm not bothered by the lean, but there are several heavy posters who are obviously and somewhat aggressively left:

Yourself
Mikie
180
Punnsh
Jamal
ssu
jorndoe
Relativist
Wayfarer

among many others. Again, no particular issue with it. Most 'clubs' as such have a lean. Philosophy is quite left-leaning in general.
I'm on the left myself, as a box-ticking claim. Quite firmly, actually. But we do not get, for instance, the type of robust, detail-laden responses to some of the left-wing wittering about Trump (and I'm not the one to give it, so don't come at me lol. All i could do it post links). Just commenting that there's clearly a left lean to this club too :)

And even so, conservatives can make their points and arguments in here anyway, there's nothing removed because of that. But if people think hate speech or similar is just a matter of politics, then that's maybe the fault of that person and not a forum that aims to reach for a higher level of discourse than the usual online climate. — Christoffer

This is an unfortunate example that I am glad Jamal seems to have pushed back on.

Hate Speech is amorphous, and largely spurious. We can talk about what speech you find offensive, but using a label "hate speech" is a cudgel and nothing more. But on the Left, its a darling to shut down conversation. As we've seen with Kirk.

Not really. Again, my comments seem to run on from yours in a way that doesn't quite alter them.

I think the biggest argument for antirealism is the actual facts of eyes, ears, noses and mouths (and skin, I guess). I do, however, think its possible I've not come across a name for the position I actually think its reasonable, because its not idealism as antirealism might suggest.
I suggest antirealism about perception is roughly, unavoidable, but that antirealism as a metaphysical comment seems... tenuous as best, and seemingly ridiculous at worst. Maybe that clears up where I'm not understanding the issues in the previous comments.

I beg to differ. The position that "conscious activity cannot be reduced to neural correlates" is a strong claim- it implies impossibility. My position is that there's no basis to claim it's impossible ("not impossible" is a modest claim) — Relativist

That's definitely fair, and fwiw, where I sit.

But I feel exactly the same level of passion as Wayf does about avoiding people who claim its either sorted, or all-but-sorted. We actually simply have no clue yet, and may never.

I have my doubts.

We all know, at some level, what existence is. — ucarr

We don't. — AmadeusD

What narrative are you after?

I don't think Trump gives a flying fuck about stopping the drug trade.
— Metaphysician Undercover

Everyone knows that, why he is doing it though is another question. — Sir2u

Jesus Christ.

The level of omniscience people in the Lounge have, specifically about Trump makes me laugh a little less haughtily at TDS.