I'm more interested in what his popularity means for the future — frank

(Y)

he commented that a lot of people like it — frank

Well, of course he would. And most people do like strong, decisive language. It's hard to take seriously hte kind of mealy-mouthed horseshit most politicians give out. That's not to say this is good but it certainly doesn't insinuate his votes want a dictator. That's a rather bizarre claim, tbh (not that you precisely made it).

If "red" is just in your mind, when you ask for a red pen, how is it that the person you are asking hands you what you want? — Banno

Sometimes, they don't. Or, they are wrong.

Bang on, imo

There is one thing Trump cares about - Trump. — Fooloso4

Yep, agree there.

What do you make of Project 2025? — Fooloso4

It's not much to do with Trump. He's running with it because it'll work for him.

Of course he does! He is driven by his ego. He wants unquestioned loyalty. He courts strong-man leaders of other countries. He uses the dictatorial tactics of fear, disinformation, and scapegoating. — Fooloso4

Haha, case in bloody point mate.

He is unpredictable and cannot be controlled. — Fooloso4

This is a ridiculous statement and patently untrue. I'll leave it there.

I've been a massive Mike Patton kick recently, topping the list on Spotify for his solo work, Fantomas and nearing the top for Faith No More, Bungle, Peeping Tom, Kaada/Patton and a few others.

Unsure what it is about him. Everything is gold. I am an absolutely incredible vocal nerd, so this explains some of it. But he just does so much, across so many fields and genres.. Never ending source of impressive work.

I think everyone is taking Trump the person way more seriously than he takes himself. He's muddling through - not planning a decade-long campaign to be dictator. He doesn't care enough.
The potential results of his political career are legitimately worrying, but he is clearly not the psychopathic mastermind everyone is positing half the time (and a bumbling moron the other half.. go figure). If anything, he is being co-opted for his charisma for genuinely either malicious, or delusional politicians behind him (the heinous Christians, obviously, one of which he is not. He is LARPing, ironically).

The only difference is that its circumscribed to a given system, though, right?

Philosophy should be about how best to live. Whatever does not inform that, however interesting and creative it might be, is just a diversion in the form of speculation. — Janus

The vast, vast majority of philosophy has nothing to do with this, despite best efforts to pretend it is about personal development. "How best to live" is an empty phrase.

This is... quite rich.

Well done; have a cookie.

Once again, proving the above. At least attempt not to be ethically disgusting.

Why not? — frank

You cannot be seriously encouraging hiring practices which are overtly racist and sexist, diminishing the value and achievement of those marginalised groups in the crosshair? Tbf, you openly wish Trump had been assassinated successfully. It's a shame that otherwise intelligent people let their brains fall out their ass and become moral monsters within politics.

https://m.facebook.com/libsoftiktok/videos/tiktoker-has-complete-meltdown-because-biden-dropped-out/494911602948894/

Unfortunately, this isn't the source i Had - just one I can find by Googling, but it's a TikTok, that i THINK appeared on LibsofTikTok but im unsure.

I don't care how they engineered ("forced" "bullied") POTUS to step aside ("palace coup"?) so long as the outcome is a candidate to replace him who can curb stomp The MAGA Cult Clown to Electoral College defeat in just over a hundred days. — 180 Proof

And there we have it.

You are not a serious person.

This is, at the very least, consistent with reality. If Jesus is real, his love transcends the sum of habits that we call Christianity.

Cannot get over how formatting is most of 180's posts.

Alright— I was dead wrong. — Mikie

As usual.

Are the guy that lost his mind and started punching himself in the head in their car on tik tok when Biden announced this? Same vibe from you throughout htis thread.

I do not think that entirely fits. On two accounts actually. Also a government that is not chosen by its people, say the government of the Soviet Union, still promulgated law and therefore on this positivist account you now seem to embrace (if only for the sake of argument perhaps), that law also backs up obligations. — Tobias

To be entirely clear, I don't hold that view. I think 'legal obligations' exist, and are pursuant to written laws. Those laws may be arbitrary, and that's another argument for another day. But the obligations themselves only exist in light of whatever that legislation requires from person X.

Secondly, obligations may also arise due to customs and not backed up by sanctions, at least not formal sanctions. For instance if you enter into a promise with your brother to return you the book. — Tobias

This is what I reject, entirely, and have seen nothing which would establish this to be more than a nicety of mind.

the institutions of promising, contracting perhaps even principles of good conduct — Tobias

this is incoherent to me. Nothing here gives me anything except that you consider non-physical concepts of mind institutions. That seems...absurd? Perhaps that's a bit harsh but I can't grasp where you're coming from, or going. To make a little clearer where i'm going I take obligations to come into existence, as legal entities for lack of a better term. Obviously tehy aren't 'entities' but there are enforceable 'promises' made in law. They are not enforceable outside of this. You are not obliged. There is no obligation (beyond that which I've described earlier - I just don't see how two other, unrelated, physical things, could amount to a non-physical obligation).

so historically grown ways of speaking and acting that causes people to expect certain ways of speaking and acting. I think institutions are historically grown and determined in continuous practice so much so that they become part and parcel of our everyday world. — Tobias

I agree that this is the the state of affairs, generally. The 'obligations' never arise from custom. They arise from formalising a custom (so that goes to our disagreement re: positivism to some degree too).

That part of the promise being unfulfillable the promise becomes moot and so does the obligation that resulted from it. — Tobias

Can you outline why there would be any difference here between someone forgetting their own commitment? If person A in that story simply drank too much, forgot, and didn't turn up. There's no mens rea. Can you point out the wrong-maker there?

Netherlands we have the legal figure of the 'natural obligation', — Tobias

So, just a mis-named extension of a legal obligation to my mind

. Hard to see how that's being missed?

Things pop in and out of existence all the time — Tobias

(this will elicit more, so I quoted it after the previous one)
Yes, I agree. And a promise would fit this bill, imo. You make a promise, in a moment, and that moment is then gone. It's up to you what you do after that (again, allowing for enforceability mechanisms creating artificial obligations such as at law - It's a "If you want X, then do/don't do Y - this is true without hte Law too).

he is still under the natural obligation to return it to the original owner — Tobias

Im not sure this can supported by anything. It's a assertion, and one that we've developed Law to enforce. Otherwise it's a nothing.

There is a world of difference — Tobias

There is not any difference, conceptually, as my examples show. They are separate practical scenarios, but nothing changes at-base. Your response here is perplexing in that regard.

but every good friend would tell them that under this condition they have no obligation anymore, at least I would assume... — Tobias

This, also, explains how you're approaching this. I'm unsure you can get away with claiming anything but that your responses represent your emotional reactions to these issues after this, and the line noted in your previous email (i think, addressed further down this post).

The institution of promising is violated when promises are not kept. That is not only a private issue between people, but a social issue because the institution of promising is an important pattern by which we govern our conduct and negotiate our journey through the world. — Tobias

Conceptually, perhaps, but you're conflating hte conceptual with the practical here so I can't really make heads or tails.

Your account, like those of Michael and Frank, still seems to individualistic to me and committed to the idea that things exist but relations do not. — Tobias

It doesn't do this at all imo. Relations exist. An obligation isn't a relation. An expectation/commitment nexus is a relation. An obligation, in all the ways outline in this thread, is a free-floating nonsense. It literally has nothing to it except the above attitudes, in relation to each other. No where does an obligation pop into existence. Again, except at the behest of enforcement. And even here, it's still boiled down to what one, personally, is happy to accept as a consequence. Conflating something which can be described (relation, commitment, expectation) with someone literally made up is... not a good move to me.

Threat of sanction does not explain it — Tobias

Yet, it does. Entirely. There is no loose end in my description of how 'promises' work. I take it that you're simply uncomfortable with it, whcih is fine. That's why we have the Law.

the notion that this is they way things should be done. — Tobias

Which is arbitrary. Obviously. Going to your point about - the government does act like a dealer. It has just been given 'legitimacy'. Like a pharmacist. Postivism is baked into this account, or ignored entirely. Going to the below couple of responses...

That is logical because a government does not say that. — Tobias

This is not logical, in any way, because the Government says "I'll put you in jail" "Ill take your kids" "I'll put you in a labour camp" "I'll make your life economically untenable" among other things. The fact that governments no longer specifically break legs (some do, actually) isn't relevant. The threat of force is EXACTLY the same. We just assent to the Government because we assess it as legitimate. There is nought else involved. In fact, that's largely how governments get going - Kowloon is a perfect example.

What the government does is to force you to adhere to a norm — Tobias

The relevant norm is paying for your goods in a society of commerce. The Dealer is doing the same thing

if a government would behave like a dealer and threaten in the same vein, the obligations its command are moot as its reign lost legitimacy. (The sanctions of govt could be every bit as severe, often even moreso, but that is not the issue I think.) — Tobias

This is, in fact, what a huge section of society feels. And it's a completely legitimate position. Questioning why, how and how far we asset to the government's demands is one of the most important socio-political questions that is available to modern society. Generally speaking, half the population of a given country is at the behest of a system it doesn't assent to per se - but democracy has prevailed. And so we accept "legitimacy" as the mediating factor. Governments get overthrown when the go as far as a dealer, and are small enough to be overthrown. When the government is too big to be overthrown (analogously: Cartels) we have to muddle through.

I understand that you assent to government demands. You would not assent to a dealer's demands. The difference is very, very little. Attitude.

the coherence, consistency and goals of the body of laws itself. — Tobias

So, you are a positivist? If you're not a natural law theorist, where does this legitimacy come from for you to asset to these principles? Seems to me you agree with them. Fair.

Was absolutely worthwhile, and I thank you immensely for your time!

Right - o. This seems to just be a circle at this stage, ignoring all else outside of it.

Which says a huge, huge amount about you. Not him.

absolutely. More jokes in the clowns show.

Yes, but all of these "most trained" philosophers are trained in analytic philosophy. — Constance

That is a wild, unsubstantiated and almost certainly dead-wrong assumption. Most philosophers are not continental philosophers. Most philosophers are well aware of continental philosophy and it's short-comings. It's pretty rich taking the "everyone is wrong but my club" line.

There is a reason you're getting 'juvenile' responses. They aren't juvenile. They are on point, and perhaps have an effect on your ego as you seem quite committed to a school quite readily dismissed by tthose really working on life's problems. Tinkering with language is all Continental's have left to give us.

well stated vacuum of inquiry. — Constance

The level of irony you're on is impressive. Go forth and waste your time...

I think Continental philosophy is demonstrably stupid and self-referential. It is bad writing, bad thinking and even worse social discourse. Those are my views. If you appreciate how I got there, then:

at best being political at worst an indoctrinated evangelist for a movement. — ENOAH

This sounds suspiciously like an authoritarian government pretending to be kind. Philosophy is not a movement, but Continental philosophy is. I have been quite clear that this is the distinction that I see as relevant.

Yeah, Im unsure you read my most recent response in this case. Your re-quoting simply leads me to illustrate for you the same mistake. We are just not addressing the same thing.

I read it fine. You don't seem to want to see I'm talking about something other than what you're trying to say. Which, I also think is dumb - but I don't take Michael's position on that. Neither are acting rationally (wrt some promise or obligation) without the infrastructure. The Landlord, though, in pre-infrastructure world, is acting rationally as to his power to elicit his desired response. So, we agree that the obligation is irrelevant. I hold it doesn't exist.
So, you got that bit wrong too :) Fantastic!

I can't grasp what I'm to get from your comment.
It seems plain to me Continental philosophy had, and carries a relatively specific agenda among its number regardless of consistency or coherence. Haabermas may be the best of them, because he's had to contend with the accurate retrospectives on his predecessors.

Philosophy 'proper' lets say, without wanting to be too condescending, does not. Philosophers carry them, but not the arena. Continental philosophy is explicitly deconstructionist, for instance.

...isn't taken seriously by those who have never read it. To those who have read it, it is taken very seriously. But Wikipedia is not reading. — Constance

I have read much. I don't take it seriously. Neither do the vast, vast majority of academics and students I've interacted with through Philosophy education.

Weirdly, this response is the kind of outlandish, comedic set of assumptions that has most trained philosophers rejecting continental philosophy as fart-sniffing. I tend to agree.
Pretending you understand Heidegger is not exactly a good thing.

LOL Fair enough.

I can't see how. They are not parallel questions to me. I was addressing whether or not there is an obligation Not what one would do about it. My glib response to your initial point was quite clearly apt and reasonable.

Before tenancy enforcement infrastructure, you would be an absolute moron to try to 'force' your landlord's hand. You're out on your arse.

As I noted elsewhere (actually, I think it was a different topic, but im leaving that lead in) what people do about things isn't the same as "whether or not" in regard to those things. So, my point illustrates a different issue: There is no obligation. THere is enforcement. Without adequate enforcement, do whatever you want as regards your promises or 'obligations' (i have at length noted that I don't think that even makes sense, but hey - a new comer :) )

I've seen several comments that our members wish death on Trump and liken him to Hitler

Can be 100% sure, without a shadow of a doubt this is not a politically savvy group.

That said, NOS is still being a supreme weirdo too.

I knew there was a reason Continental philosophy isn't taken seriously...

Your response was "nonsense" and then reposting the post from which I quoted.
I don't know what to do with that level of sillygooseness ( my tongue is rather in my cheek but i got the same impression from you.. so *shrug* lol)

Nonsense. — Leontiskos

I see you've chosen to deny what is clearly a reasonable take, in terms that themselves indicate you're not thinking very clearly.

Here is the whole post: — Leontiskos

I read the whole post. Do with that what you will.

True. in the specific case, as an answer to an example. Not a goalpost; not in the OP. — Vera Mont

You've sort of... nevermind.

Okay. How does one justify a career in drug-dealing? — Vera Mont

Please re-read my comments as I have thoroughly outlined how this could be done. We are third parties. The person themselves just needs to be honest. We can't make further comment.

Hoe do you judge a dealer's scruples in retrospect, not having witnessed his sales? It's up to him or his advocate to offer a justification, explanation, excuse or mitigating circumstance. — Vera Mont

This is, again, a legal description of a possible answer. I'm not doing that, though.
The justification is purely one toward the individual's moral compass. Personally? I would need to see which drugs, where, how often, whether there are any consideration of the wider social implications(locally) and whether or not the dealer is actually developing and moving forward in life. But, that's for them to assess.

My point is that justification is a nonsense. The above seems to suggest this, as we have to exclude an authority to which something is being justified (jury, judge, police, wife, children.. whatever) meaning instances of justification are actually just assuagement.

Well, seems to me that the obligation exists beyond the act of making the promise. That is, to make a promise is to place oneself under an obligation. — Banno

Understood. I think, though I wouldn't assume your mind, that i've groked that correctly across all exchanges to that end. You believe the obligation comes into existence, and that you are "under" this "thing' that you posit "exists". I understand.

Now that obligation is not physical. It is not "floating around". But it does exist. — Banno

Descriptively, I'm with you - but i'm already off the bus. Onward..

It is a promise, it is an obligation. — Banno

Which is it? I am already sensing self-confused response here.. They aren't the same thing in either this post, or your quite thorough responses to Michael. So why are they here?

the undertaking of an obligation — Banno

Is an act - which clearly exists 'in time' as they say. So, so far, descriptively, I'm still with you. This fits my account nicely. I just don't make use of "thing" here, rather than "act". To the above "calling out", this is apt - If the promise causes the obligation, they aren't the same thing - could you be pressed to say the promise "occurs" and creates "an obligation"? If so, we've made some headway.

Not nothing. — Banno

This one is somewhat hard to respond to, because I can see exactly what you're trying to point out. But the answer is: the question makes no sense. If both parties (assuming no one else knew) have forgotten, there isn't anything to be spoken about. There is nothing. We are playing God with time and perspective to even have this discussion. IN real life, that can't happen.

and again the promise exists. — Banno

Ok, for hte moment ignore that previous response, because this is interesting. How does it exist if neither the commitment, or expectation, currently exist? This indicates there must be a "something" out there in the world which constitutes that promise. What/where is it once both parties forget?

is the promise the sum of all the brain states of everyone who has heard of it? — Banno

On my account, which is probably quite incomplete in the sense that this has never interested me as something to write about before - it exists as the two complimentary brain states of "commitment" and "expectation" on the opposite sides of the act of promise. Promises happen - no issue. Those two brainstates then result, and are (barring mental weirdness) inextricably linked to a single end. That, to me, is enough to fulfil the concept. Perhaps more than.

I gather that you would like to argue that promises are brain states? — Banno

The above may have already done this for me, but not quite. They are highly relevant, but they are not, individually "an obligation" or 'a promise'. The act of 'promising' creates brain states. The relation between them (which is a state of affairs only, on this account) is where people want to say some third thing, "the obligation", comes in. I deny this. The two states obtain. The "obligation" is just a description of the resulting emotional states of the two parties. You describe the two brain states - indicate the emotional states (determination and expectation, i guess), and you're done. There's nothing further to add (again, on my account). We don't need to go further to explain what's happening here...

a similar structure that each and every person that has heard of the promise has in their brain? — Banno

I really like this, which is why I've quoted it, but I don't take that, no. Other than the two "assigning" parties, as it were, other brain states aren't relevant. This can be easily accepted because it also applies to your account. The two parties involved are the relevant ones, in either account (unless you disagree? Interested if so).

And what ab out written promises, or audio recordings - are these also promises? And how does the promise move from one page to another? If it is a physical state, then the nature of that state is quite irresolute. — Banno

I don't think the situation changes, unless we're talking Law again in which case - lots to be said! But roughly, yes, they are records of promises. Not acts as above, but recordings. The only difference here is they create legal obligations which are actually just rules pursuant to punishment or loss of some kind. Not hte same thing we're talking about, to be sure.

The promise seems to be something quite apart from any such physical state. Isn't it more a construction, put together by people using language to get things done? Isn't it a way of undertaking an obligation in a social and linguistic context? — Banno

But why shouldn't we talk of such things as existing? Along with money, property, friendship, and so much more. We live in a complex of social constructs. — Banno

These two go together well, and make for a relatively straight-forward set of things to respond to at once.

To me, no, it doesn't seem that way at all. BUT, giving some credence to that version of things, the 'promise' is literally an act made. The obligation might come into existence, but the promise exists ephemerally as a decision, not a 'thing'. It doesn't exist anymore than 'the decision to shut the fridge' exists. If you feel that decisions 'exist' as 'things' then that's fine. I suppose I would put this in the category that 'personality' goes in. It can exist, and then not exist(perhaps as the exact firing of certain exact neurons at an exact moment?). No issue.

Yes, I think "obligation" is a language game we use to allow us to get things done. We socially enforce promises made to avoid the chaotic nuisance a majority-dishonest society seems to devolve into. I do not think this means it 'exists'. It is a useful fiction. A heuristic-type thing, perhaps? A concept under which we denote instances, but under which no actual token occurs. Its descriptive only - maybe this can be thought of as similar to "dancing around the point". It does not actually occur. But we use it all the time to symbolize certain behaviour and the resulting emotional response to it.

In terms of why we shouldn't think of these things as 'existing' - I note the stark difference between "money/property" and "friendship". The former can literally be pointed at, even in the endless contexts in which they occur - the concept is unchanging and we have millions of tokens to be analysed. The latter is ... grey, and probably just a symbol for several emotional states that people can share. They can be transferred to other people, which says to me it relies on the brain state involved to even get off the ground as a concept - in reality, there is no 'friendship' to be talked about. There are activities and attitudes - in a certain box, we'll call these reciprocal attitudes friendship. But whence aquaintancship? Friendship? Bestfriendship? Friendswithbenefitship? Also, to note, people's version of what constitutes a friendship vary quite a bit. The particular emotional states required aren't set. It's, at best, an indicator that someone one (or people) are within a range of emotional states with regard to one another. That's not actually a thing. That occurs with anyone who has interacted. We're just sort of picking a colour and going with it.

These are all murky, "best we've got" terms for things that we 'feel' but do not actually exist, is my view there (though, again, this hasn't interested me to talk about before so Its entirely possible more good exchanges like this might change the view).

We live in a complex of social constructs. — Banno

I agree. Mostly in the mind. Shared delusions don't cause things to exist.

Fragile? :rofl: What an idiotic inference; what makes you think I care about some random ad hominem projections beyond making the effort to call them out for what they are? I'm not interested in participating in your silly game of one-upmanship. — Janus

Here you are, Janus. I need to do no more.

I set no 'goalposts' — Vera Mont

Ahem.

justify it to a jury — Vera Mont

This is a Neon Green goalpost, totally different to personal justification. That's my point. And it's correct.

o, you can't 'lump' individuals - they're all separate — Vera Mont

I don't think you've read my post correctly. When i say "lump individuals" I am talking about that individual's drug-dealing career as a 'case'. Not several individuals. Sorry if that was unclear.

Dealer A sells drugs 200 times. This is one of the unscrupulous dealers.
Those 200 times constitute a "case". There is no need to look at every sale. The risk factor is high enough to "justify" some kind of response (on this account) whereas a dealer who does not unscrupulously sell drugs may need a more thorough analysis. Again, this is just talking within your framework - I don't think either makes too much sense, myself. But that's to do with the inadequacy of cultural/social attitudes to drugs, so you can ignore that if you like.

Given the above clarification, the final line is nonsensical, understandably so, and so i've not responded to it.

It is, but I dislike using shorthand. — Tobias

Fair - i suppose I was looking toward a situation where you'd have just outlined your personal position with reference. But in any case, it looks like we saw that similarly.

I think that is a metaphysical assumption that one need not make. — Tobias

Hmm. I really appreciate the clarity this seems to be granting me. Things don't need to be mind-independent to exist (im further down the concepts-exist-in-reality line than Banno, eg), true. But some things do. Such as, the authority in the previous element of the discussion. That exists. It's authority exists (perhaps by consent, so it's some levels above the mechanics of an interpersonal obligation) and is arbitrarily enforced to the emotional contentedness of the majority of it's subjects and little, if anything else, is involved. In this case, I can't quite see how you could then still claim obligations exist.

The same can be said of an "obligation". It's an empty space between commitment and expectation. But there is nothing there. I guess, while this example is pretty parochial in terms of what concepts its engaging:

Person A promises;
Person B that they will attend X event on date Y specifically to accompany/support. Meaning B being present is crucial.
Person B, unfortunately, perishes on date V (i.e prior to the maturity of the 'promise').
Person A feels their promise is unfulfilled.
Person B is ... dead. There is nothing to oblige. They couldn't feel one way or the other. There is no obligation.

I think you would be wrong in all conceivable respects to claim that the obligation still exists (this is worded as if momentarily granting the idea that an obligation can exist besides the two or more brain states involved).
The situation has not changed for person A. They mentally/emotionally feel their 'obligation'. This is all they had before, too. But Person B is dead. Given that there is no material difference whatsoever to Person A prior to, and after person B's death with regard to the 'obligation' (i.e it exists in their head as a commitment) either:

1. Obligations do not exist. People with commitments and expectations exist; or
2. Obligations can exist in a positivist sense only.

Now, that gets messy - the kinds of 'authority' vary, and the enforceability varies etc.. etc.. etc. etc.. but the overall point seems clear to me: the obligation only exists as an instrument of authority and does not obtain without it. However, I now anticipate some type of "well, your emotional reaction is a kind of authority". Yes, it is. But it is not an obligation. It's an enforcement mechanism. So, "obligation" is the wrong word, I'm just trying to be least-confusing.

I think that is a metaphysical assumption that one need not make. — Tobias

Fair enough, but per the above I think it's required in this case - otherwise, "obligation" can only obtain within descriptions of other things. "thing" not needing to be physically extant, here.

It needs no logical compass. It simply needs a society in which one expect from one another that one fulfills his promises. — Tobias

Seems to me here you've inadvertently dropped your point here, and picked up mine? I'm only hearing, as conclusions to these points "It leaves a bad taste" or "It would hurt the relationship between entity X and entity Y". Yep. Not an obligation? Onward...

The fact that some concept is dependent on our societal interaction doesn't make it any less real. — Tobias

It does. But that aside, what you seem to be saying is that IFF your society has the concept promises, that magics them into existence as actual things (or, to be a bit arcane - choses). This is plainly not true?

We live in a world with doors, similarly, we live in a world with marriages — Tobias

A marriage is not at all analogous to a door. Forgive if my next response is a little glib. The above is really difficult to parse...

it is also different from: "rules made by a competent authority" — Tobias

That is, by your own description, exactly what it is. A society with the same collective concept, but not enforcing authority simply doesn't have marriages the way we think of them. Which is literally, a legal instrument evidencing a commitment and expectation enforceable by the relevant authority. Telling someone you wont cheat, that you'll raise kids right, always take care of htem etc.. is meaningless to a marriage. That's just being nice to each other.

Than indeed, there is no marriage anymore. — Tobias

So, your position here is that if anyone knows about hte purported marriage, then it obtains? Yikes. That is extremely confused to me. And it also violates your entire position - if one must know of the thing for it to exist, then we're back at rejecting that reasoning and having no basis for invoking an obligation separate to the individual brain states involved. Banno's entire point is that we can accept things exist without knowing. You seem to be saying if no one knows about it, it doesn't exist - which is plainly wrong, too.

At what time does it exist then? — Tobias

The decision exists at the moment the decision is made (or thereabouts). It doesn't create anything further. It is a decision made. That's all.

I think one would prefer a theory — Tobias

This is not relevant. What one prefers is a road to the end of rational discourse.

The decision can be undone at any time? If it cannot and you are still bound to the decision, what is it then that binds? — Tobias

You're getting it.

It is not Banno that holds Banno accountable. — Tobias

It is (and this is directly in response to the questions in the quote immediately above this. It is Banno. If he doesn't care what hte other side of the "obligation" does in response, he couldn't care less whether he fulfills the promise. If he does care about their response, he will likely do it (assuming it causes that response that he wants) because it makes him comfortable with himself. However,

I recognise in your addendum here ("it is others") you are essentially invoking just authority. It is on the authority of the other's expectation Banno should be accountable for his promise. Sure. That has been accepted. It does not mean an "obligation" exists. It means someone expects something, and Banno doesn't want that smoke. These are, put plainly, hold-over tactics masquerading as some moral concept of "obligation". And, while i take your earlier point - these are culturally embedded and for the most part, agreeable, forms of interaction - they are arbitrary. There is no objective benchmark, or divine reason for them. It's just how we best-get-on. And that is all we can hope for, surely?

I would really not know why one would hold a position that cannot make sense of obligations. — Tobias

It can, though. The problem is you want something to exist which doesn't - and so the position seems incomprehensible (wrt obligations, anyway). To me (and, i guess Michael and Frank) we see no issue. The obligations simply don't obtain. Other, relevant and important things obtain which give the same appearance you're trying to explain with 'obligation'. We see no issue, because we don't take that position. You already took that position, and so the theory seems torturous. Understandable. I just htink you're wrong, and you think I (we) are. Fair.

legally — Tobias

yes. You're getting it (maybe ;) )

My position comes down to what I know as 'interactionism' — Tobias

This explains a whole lot about your responses around Marriage, but this just makes it all the more obvious there exists a legal obligation and where there is no enforcing authority, there is no obligation. And, here, "obligation" actually just means "threat of consequence".

ou need to hold on to all kinds of obscure positions, namely that a promise exists one moment and stops existing the next or that a promise should really be conceived of as a brain state or that an obligation only reaches as far as I am willing to be bound to the promise. — Tobias

Bold: Not my position. I was actually really, really clear to try to avoid this charge. The promise happens. It is an action not something which "obtains" in the "thing" sense. A promise can be made the same way an explanation can be "made". Its more "made out" or "enunciated". It doesn't come into existence. I would suggest thinking here of someone making a false promise again. The actions are the same. Only hte brainstate changes, and (in this story) only for the promissor.

Italics: Not only is this plainly true (to me), this is probably one of hte better descriptions i've seen. Maybe its uncomfortable? But yeah, the obligation isn't there if you don't attend to it. If you, personally, jettison your promise you have no obligation. Even if we're going to grant the obligation "thing" status, its collapsed because you pulled your support out from it.

Michael apparently thinks it does not matter whether one is ordered by a gang of robbers or whether one is taxed by legitimate authorities. — Tobias

It doesn't. One is simply "legitimate authority". The behaviour is the same (i touched on this earlier in this post, funnily enough). What could possibly be said to be different?

"Do this or I'll break your legs" - Dealer
"Do this or I'll take your kids and give them to another set of parents temporarily" - Gov'munt

I may prefer my legs broken, personally. But that aside, there are given rules, and given consequences to not following them. The "culturally embedded" concept of promise functions the same in both of the above scenarios. In fact, I would argue that both of these scenarios exist precisely because the obligation itself is no where to be found. Enforcement solves that.

reality ;) of legal principles — Tobias

Purely on a legal mind-to-legal mind basis, what do you mean here? Is the assertion that there is some kind of legal principle which actually transcends human minds? I have never been able to get on board with anything remotely close to "natural law" type arguments so Im really curious.

You know it is rational to invoke your landlord's promise, and you would do so in real life — Leontiskos

Because legal support exists. Otherwise, no one in their right mind would go to a landlord and try to hold them to their word. This is intensely naive to the history of commerce.

You could do the exact same thing with "do flowers exist." — Count Timothy von Icarus

No. You could not. And you did not. I shall illustrate why not:

A. Nope. You haven't explained what a flower is at all. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This doesn't appear to be relevant at all to the discussion. WHAT an obligation is, can be gleaned clearly from the descriptions given.
"where is it?" is the question, and flowers are demonstrably extant as "whatever it is we call flowers". This cannot be done for an obligation or promise (i use that word alittle differently, but I take yours/tobias/bannos use here). You have to describe something else. It's a shadow, at best.

How does the dealer justify it to a jury? — Vera Mont

Very, VERY different question that shifts the entire conversation to a different goalpost (not sure you intended to do that - just being clear why its not addressed here).

Selling drugs is case-by-case. But, you can lump individuals as 'a case'. If someone is uscrupulously selling drugs in an area where by and large, impoverished children seek them you can round up all their cases under this banner to deal with the overall risk.
If a drug dealer was to claim they have a moral framework, i'd want to hear it and discuss it with them. I, in fact, was one of these dealers for some time.

Mikie still not capable of a rational thought.

Oh well.

The last three days have been wild. Trump will win. It will be a fun watch, and its a shame there are dickheads across the USA who think it's such a dire situation that some kind of "society burning down" is going to occur.

It's utterly bewildering that people as intensely dull as is required to make that type of comment are in fact, capable of operation modern technology. But here we are. 180. Mikie. Benkei. The whole crew! I implore all of you to remember that you can actually speak to other humans without being dimwits.

His argument is just a whine. It's not really an argument. I fail to see how it requires actual rebuttals?

I only think its possible to 'justify' as far as 'it wasn't entirely arbitrary'. Beyond that, I think its not al that possible to 'justify' much at all. There's no objective moral to use.

Legitimate authority. I do not know what you really want, as an explanation, but as I said one can only explain by reference to certain kind of distinctions. — Tobias

You could (and please don't take this is prickly... it really is not) have just explained legal positivism to establish why a 'legitimate authority' could be a reason for adherence. It's a common position.

a command is uttered by whim of the commanding entity while an obligation is incurred by following specific procedures — Tobias

I think this is true. However:

We take the command “do this”, we phrase it as the truth-apt proposition “you ought do this”, and then we believe in the existence of some abstract entity - the “obligation” — Michael

This is also true. This speaks to our previous fracas but not directly. You can establish the existence of some 'obligation' in the sense of "you promised X" happened in time. You cannot establish "the promise" as it's own entity(this to me seems beyond discussion. Not because I'm stubborn but because there is literally nothing to be spoken about under that concept). This is why, i think, Michael is calling it 'fiction'. There is no logical compass that lands on "fulfill your promises". That's only ever going to be relevant case-by-case and is, in fact, a moral decision which only exists at the moment it is made. Sometimes, promises are made to be broken in service of some other greater good for instance so that 'decision' never imported what you're terming an 'obligation'. You actually didn't promise anything despite creating the apparent 'obligation' to fulfill the promise. Now, I've not gone back to Banno's response/s yet but I see this as the crucial point he (and, i'm presuming you) seems to think explains itself, rather than providing one (or, in fact, being a bad quippist - even worse). What is the promise? There is no possible answer to this without simply describing something else (a brainstate, a decision, or one's personally 'ought' motivation - Banno likes to fulfill promises, it seems. Fine).

As noted previously, "making a promise" obviously exists and imports (given honesty is involved) some reason to do something. It does not create an obligation beside you wanting to keep your promise, as it were. It is yours. It isn't 'out there' as anything.

So you are chasing your own tail when you ask what 'ought' means? — Tobias

The sense in which this is true, is that he's giving you far more opportunity to answer the question than is reasonable. He's chasing an answer that you cannot give. Which is interesting, as you seem to think that the opposite is true - that anti-realism can't explain obligations. Well, the answer there is pretty simple. You see an obstacle he (we) don't. Is that a bit more diplomatic here? What these last two pages look like is Michael wants a reason to think obligations exist outside the internal emotional state of having chosen to hold oneself to that intent.

No one has even tried to do this. It looks to me, and probably to Michael, like every one is simply talking around the point. Particularly bad in this regard is Leontiskos' posts on the previous page. They are bordering on unjustified condescensiion. Michael has pointed out that simply appealing to convention isn't actually an argument. And there the conversation seems to stall. A perfect example:

You wrote the subsidized check on the basis of a promise - a real promise that involved obligations. Without those obligations it would make no sense to write the subsidized check, and given the promise it makes no sense not to invoke it when he says you underpaid. — Leontiskos

This doesn't do anything to establish an obligation as an 'object'. It's an attempt to explain the psychology (potentially contradictory) behind why a person would fulfil their promises. And the answer (honestly, imo, well put here - despite his attempt to claim a different landing pad) is that convention has meant that if you crunch the numbers, people generally do what they say. Therefore, reasonable to expect someone's word to hold. There is nothing remotely about obligations or what the 'ought' involved is. It is states of affairs leading to a statistical outcome informing a course of action. Contradiction isn't even a problem now.

I think that unless the below is adequately addressed, without avoiding the direct question, this is a futile attempt to convince someone to believe your emotional responses are facts:

I am saying that I don't know what "Orestes had an obligation" means. I am asking you what it means and you appear to be doing everything in your power to avoid answering. — Michael

That bold is going to make this thread pages and pages more of nonsense until it's sorted.

No. It's not. Thanks for playing.