The capacity of speech acts to represent objects and states of affairs in the world is an extension of the more biologically fundamental capacities of the mind (or brain) to relate the organism to the world by way such mental states as belief and desire, and especially through action and perception. — Richard B

Ok, that is a mouthful of speech activity. Let me try to break it down.

“mind (or brain) to relate the organism to the world”
You have at least two physical pivot points here. Brain in an organism, and the world.

And the two relate “by way such mental states as belief and desire, and especially through action and perception.”

I don’t follow.

Since speech acts are a type of human action, and since the capacity of speech to represent objects and states of affairs is part of a more general capacity of the mind to relate the organism to the world, any complete account of speech and language requires an account of how the mind/brain relates the organism to reality." — Richard B

“a more general capacity of the mind to relate the organism to the world”

Isn’t whatever that means sort of the whole question? How can this be asserted as a premise to lead to some other conclusion, when what/how/whether “a more general capacity of the mind to relate the organism to the world” is the question?

“I take it to be an analytic truth about language that whatever can be meant can be said.” — Richard B

I can see ways to make this be true and ways to make this be false, meaning, it is an interesting statement, and I think worth pondering, but it feels treacherous.

Why should they not be content with accepting at face value the connections between past experience and our memory responses, that are verified by daily experience? — Richard B

I would say that J’s question does not reject or question that memory is what it is, it is just looking at what something like “connections between past experience and our memory responses“ really means, or how that “brute fact” phenomenological moment of recalling a memory might be better understood.

They feel that there must be a memory-process which explains this ability. But the memory-process, consisting of some complex of imagery and feeling, which they interpose the original perception and the memory response, does not make the ability any more intelligible than it was before. — Richard B

So is this saying there is no way to intelligently talk about “memory-process”?

The memory theorist makes a useless movement. He invents a memory process to fill what he thinks is an explanatory gap; but his own explanation creates its own explanatory gap." — Richard B

I say go for it anyway. Create that explanatory gap by creating our own explanation in the first place.

Why not question whether there needs to be some process of recognition or identification at all. We humans have natural responses… — Richard B

I just realized, when it comes to pondering the phenomena of memory, are you basically saying we should forget about it? :razz:

They dodged it. You’ve dodged it. — NOS4A2

But it’s simple. One cannot control another’s motor cortex with words. — NOS4A2

It’s simple? So how does one control one’s own motor cortex? That’s called the problem of free will versus determinism. Not simple.

You seem to be saying that words cannot induce actions in others.

How about “no, please wait in the lobby.” If I move at all it’s because I choose to move at all, but if I pick the lobby, it’s at least in part because of the other person’s words. Right?

I see a stop sign. On one level I control my own motor cortex and I can stop or keep driving.

But on another level, the only reason I am considering stopping is because of the “stop” speech posted on the sign.

Words are causing me to make a decision of what to do with my motor cortex - keep the motor rolling or stop the train.

So if I stop, did I stop because the sign said “stop”or because I chose to stop?

The answer is both. I was trying to drive but stopped instead because of my choice to follow what the sign said to do.

Or how about this, what if I jumped up in a theater and ran to the door and left. Everyone around me would be saying “what’s got in to him - what induced him to run?” They would all assume it was my ability to control my own motor cortex, but, they would still be wondering if there was anything more specific that led to the quick exit.

Then someone else yells “Run! Fire!!”

All the other people who were sitting with me might now say, “Ah, now I see why he ran, he must have smelled smoke or something.” “Now it makes some sense - he must not like being burned to death.” “Good inference,” says the other one, as they sit there…

They sit there because they are free to control their own motor cortexes as they see fit.

Then the person yells again “Run you fools, Fire is coming to kill you all - run for the exits! Fire! Fire!!!”

Next, after trampling someone to death, they are outside and can see there is no fire and never was.

So why did they run out of the building?
Why are they standing outside?
Is there any other reason besides their decision to jump up and run?

They all didn’t see the purpose to me running out. Then, they ran out. What caused the change of heart?

So you know, I ran out of the building because I forgot my cell phone and didn’t want anyone around here to think I was dodging any questions.

This is a perfectly good conversation, but I think you are missing something pretty big about language.

Words (immaterial meanings) really do matter (cause effects in others). I don’t know why we would want to think otherwise, especially in the context of questions about political freedom.

I mean if words can’t be the cause of action, what is the point of laws, political rallies, or anything public relating to political speech (or any speech really)?

——

I think you are talking about how we move - motor cortexes and self-determination.

A discussion about regulating speech and movement is more about why we move - what the words reasonably mean and what we can expect to induce in others’ minds as they make their decisions and self-determine the use of their motor skills.

Certainly, discussions of logic and the form of arguments and discourse can inform metaphysics. But I think the influence tends to go more in the other direction. Metaphysics informs logic (material and formal) and informs the development of formalisms. This can make pointing to formalisms circular if they are used to justify a metaphysical position. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So I appreciate this.

I just thought that, given how Banno’s post was so clear and succinct, I’d ask about the one point that I didn’t follow, namely how the use of “real” as in “real numbers” was somehow similar to “real” as in “are unicorns real”.

I’m not a math guy, and the use of “real” and “irrational” numbers always seemed like poetry about math to me. But I think mathematicians see these as distinctions that add philosophic/metaphysical weight to the different types of numbers.

The terms used to distinguish numbers from natural to real to irrational to imaginary, both fascinate me (as a philosopher who needs to use these same terms all of time), and perplex me (as they seem like technical mathematical distinctions, and don’t actually mean anything like “natural” or “real” or “imaginary” as a philosopher otherwise means them. Or do they? Which is my question here about “real” numbers.

Sounds like I would like reading him.

I once read an article I think he wrote where he said something like, all of modern academic philosophy is people arguing over who is restating the same ancient problems best. There is no actual content being sought, just method being squabbled over. Does that sound like him?

So we have a group of distinct, though not unrelated items: actual, real, existing, being...

Possible worlds give us a neat way to talk about what is actual. In the space of possible worlds there is one that is of particular interest, because it is the one in which we happen to find ourselves. But of course, actual is an indexical term, like "here" or "now". It picks out the world of the speaker in a given context. For someone in another possible world, actual refers to their world.

Propositional calculus gives us a neat way to deal with "exists" using quantification. " to be is to be the value of a bound variable" and so on. "Unicorns have horns" vs. "There exists an x such that x is a unicorn and x has a horn." There are not actual Unicorns, yet unicorns have horns. The question "Do unicorns exist?" drops by the wayside.

An account of what is "real" was given earlier in this thread. It's not real, it's counterfeit; it's not real, it's an illusion; and so on. Unicorns are not real, they are mythical.

Numbers exist, since we can quantify over them. U(x)(x+0=x).

Are they actual? well, there are numbers of things in each possible world, even if that number is zero. They do not seem to be within possible worlds so much as a way of talking about the stuff in possible worlds. Like the law of noncontradiction, they are part of the framework in which possible and actual are set out.

Are they real? Some of them. Others are imaginary. — Banno

Effortlessly brilliant.

This is why I wish you and I could get along.

The only part I think I don’t follow is “real” and “imaginary” as applied to numbers.

It seems the sense of “real” when talking about unicorns, counterfeits, and illusions is one thing, but imaginary numbers (or not-real numbers) is more of a technical term and not the same sense of “real” as with the others.

I guess I’m asking, do imaginary numbers serve a similar function when used in an equation as say a unicorn functions in a proposition? Such that we can call one number “real” and another number “imaginary” in the same way as we might call a horse “real” and a unicorn “imaginary”?

(And you would be helping me by answering, which, I appreciate could be asking too much. I hope not.)

“The external causal chain plays no explanatory role whatever in either Kripke’s or Donnellan’s account, as I will explain shortly. The only chain that matters is a transfer of Intentional content from one use of an expression to the next, in every case reference is secured in virtue of descriptivist Intentional content in the mind of the speaker who uses the expression.” — Richard B

Hey Richard,

Isn’t the above similar to just saying: “if we define our terms we can say whatever we want.”

“from one use” distinct from “to the next” is the defining of terms notion.
“Intentional content in the mind of the speaker” is the whatever we want notion.

To agree democratically to abolish democracy seems like a performative contradiction. When I elect a party different to the one you want I haven't taken away your freedom, and your party can always win the next election. — Janus

I was just pointing out that a free society could all agree to hold a vote to elect one final dictator as leader, and vote to abolish the constitution. That would be insane, and (most likely) never happen, but it is legally possible.

If absolutely everyone agreed to abolish their freedom then it might be okay — Janus

Yeah, that was my point. Although it would be nuts, there is nothing in the constitution of a free democratic society preventing it from electing a king.

When one party loses, that’s not taking away freedom. Whatever one side does can be undone after the next election, because the people remain free. That is precisely why free speech is so important. We need politicians and voters to be free to criticize and campaign against the sitting government.

Free speech, and all that it means, is a cornerstone to all other freedom.

All government limits freedom. Government is a necessary evil - necessary because people limit other people’s freedom too, so we need the rule of law and police and the elected leaders to keep ourselves a coherent society. But it’s an evil, because bureaucracy and government will always limit freedom stupidly, unfairly at times, and wastefully and expensively (taxing me takes away my power, but again, necessary evil so we can have any government).

I’ve been hearing most of my life of how the conservative parties are facist and seek to take away freedom. Reagan, Bush 2, and Trump have all meant the end of democracy. Seems a lot of people think that if their party loses, the other party is merely taking away all freedom. I say win the arguments and reverse things in the next election. Every time the other party wins, it’s not a military coup.

The fear spread by claiming the other party wants to permanently take away freedom is propaganda mostly to help defeat that party in an election. It’s unfortunate our leaders say that, and unfortunate so many people fall for it.

We all have to guard and protect our freedom and our constitution. But telling people what they can and can’t say, that is the opposite of protecting our freedom.

Someone says something ignorant, like a racist does, or a communist does, we should be free to tell them they are idiots. We should not make laws that tell all of us what to say. Plus, people are people - we need to hear what they say to know who we are dealing with. If we limit public speech, the badness just goes underground where it can boil like a volcano waiting for something to allow it to erupt. Let’s let all the assholes speak their minds and hold rallies. So we know who they are, what they think, and then work out publicly how best to deal with them.

Freedom of speech is absolutely bedrock, as well as fragile. That’s why I love it when I hear stuff I totally disagree with. I know that I’m hearing a brave person speaking their mind at least, and keeping free speech alive and loud.

thinking faith is evidence based knowledge is what is bad — Janus

So thinking faith equals knowledge is bad.

We are still talking about badness. But I agree.

What I hear there is, ‘bad religion and bad science are bad.’ You follow me? Faith that is not faith but a replacement for science is bad religion; science that uses faith as evidence is bad science.

thinking faith is evidence based knowledge is what is bad — Janus

I can also see that what you are saying leaves room for thinking faith that is just faith is what is good, or at least, not bad.

But I think we still haven’t gotten away from a discussion about faith that involves badness.

I do appreciate this:

people do not trust their leader then there will also be the danger that order will break down into chaos, or 'every man for himself"―and that would obviously not be a good strategy for survival — Janus

Are you saying there is some kind of neutral/more positive sense of faith qua faith?

Are you saying, faith in leaders, in certain people, happens? And that such faith, could be a good strategy?

Because I agree with that too.

I still think with all that’s been said, most of which has involved stories of irrational people’s actions, none of us have adequately said “what is faith.”

faith is not confined to religion. It is to be found in ideologues of all persuasions. — Janus

Sounds like religion is bad. Like other ideological persuasions are bad.

Still sounds like a contradiction with “faith is neither good nor bad.”

not about faith as such, but about faith not being acknowledged as such. — Janus

Still sounds like acknowledging faith as such would be acknowledging a bad thing.

How about faith in your own ability to lead a team of soldiers? Any faith needed to do something new and seemingly impossible with people depending on you?

Any faith needed to depend on someone else?

“Men, we might die, I forget why we are here, it might not matter to anyone what we do, but follow me!!”

Any faith in that guy?

Or: “Men, we might die, you are here to stop the enemy from entering your home town with your wives and children, everything you do matters, and I will be with you until the job is done, now follow me!!

How about that guy?

Any time you take someone’s word you are exercising faith. Faith in that person.

Have you ever depended on someone? Put yourself at great risk without any ability predict the outcome except for one thing, you believe in that one specific guy who gave you his word.

What is faith?

What occurs, when an alleged memory comes to mind, that allows me to identify it as an alleged memory? — J

Cool question.

So a guy walks in the room. You recognize his face and recall you saw him in the cafe this morning. You heard his name, because someone else yelled it when his order was ready, but you cannot recall his name. You recall it was a strange name you never heard before, but also kind of familiar like “Johnup” or “Jimzy” or something.

So in your mind, the guy’s face is a memory but the sound of his name is being imagined.

What is the difference between them? And how are they kept distinct?

I agree there is a sort of third person feature to a memory that is attributed to it, as you recall a lived experience, but one that was lived. Like me now, with third-person me seeing the guy in the cafe earlier. So you are sort of treating yourself in the third person, placing yourself in a past setting that is in mind through recall.

And recalling the guy’s face from earlier, you remember for some reason he had a blue tee shirt on, but now he has a white button down on.

So I think another feature of a memory is that, as you seek to recall more and more details, the recall dictates the content of the mental image you are recalling. When you recall something, you are consciously trying NOT to imagine, but trying to find what was already the case. You purposely want to be stuck with what you recall and can’t change, just like when you sense something in the present, you have no desire to change the thing either. We inspect memories like we inspect with our senses. The guy walks in the room and you can see that his face looked like that in the cafe this morning (you recall his face this morning), and his shirt was a blue tee shirt earlier. Avoiding evil geniuses, and Kant’s things in themselves, these facts are not yours to alter. The form of the memory is treated as if third-party, sourcing to the mind-independent world once lived in the past and not subject to your control now as it wasn’t in your control then.

Maybe I can sum this up by saying there is nothing creative about a memory.

Whereas when we imagine, we manipulate mental images much like memories, but not by recalling but by some creative function.

Like the names I am trying to recall - I could be completely making them up. Maybe his name is Scott and I am confused with some other now blurred memory of a strange name.

All of the above, which may not be helpful, makes me think of what certain psychosis might involve. If an image appears in the mind (like a memory or an imagination does), but the function that distinguishes this between something creative versus something recalled, that person would sound psychotic, talking about imaginary things as if recalling the past, or talking about things from the past as if they never happened and are just being made up. Or the first-person / third-person feature, if distorted, could seem psychotic. An image appears in mind that is actually a memory, but you think it is happening now causing hallucinations almost, or you think what is happening now is really a dream-like imagination.

I think I basically gave you some puzzle pieces here.

I have a theory that we think and talk of memory wrongly, or mostly metaphorically. Everything is actually always and only in the present. Most of our language about time and the past and memory and recall is metaphor.

We don’t search the past. The past is gone. We are presently recalling. Once something is recalled, we haven’t resurrected it from the past; we have focused our attention on some impression sitting in mind right now all along.
The better metaphor for memory is this: turning our attention to what happened before, is like turning our head to look some other direction, or like closing one’s eyes to focus on the sounds in the room. Recall, is like a sense, and only functions in the present on things that are present to it, like senses.
Me when I was 4 years old living in another town is right here, right now, in mind once recalled (in the third person). There is me now, recalling third person me now in another town. This me recalled is here just like the chair in my office could be here if I walked to my office and looked at it. A memory, like an object of sense, is a matter of attention, brought before us by recalling, like seeing.

The point being love.
— Fire Ologist

What do you think that implies? — praxis

Nothing relevant to this discussion. You might infer I have kids and I love them. But that is not why I said it. I don’t think I could be any clearer about why I said it. There is nothing you need to infer.

I’d rather not be talking about the relevance of Abraham attempting murder or fathers loving their kids as the main discussion on the legitimate question “what is faith”.

clearly religion is the quintessential exemplar and that makes it an excellent subject to focus on. — praxis

Quintessential explar of what? Of faith?

Examples are great but not enough to answer “what is X”.

And when all the quintessential examples of faith as religion are fathers attempting murder of their bound children, and heinous crimes and jihad, that seems to reflect poorly on faith, which seems to me is more fundamentally neither good nor bad. So the religious examples are getting in the way.

Since there is an apparent conflict between the religious and the non-religious here, maybe religion is actually a bad example for us to figure out “what is faith” together.

Maybe we get to that later. Let’s assume people who act on faith sometimes kill others and other times sacrifice themselves to save others. Can we see “what is faith” and “what is an act of faith” without only focusing on people hurting people?

How about faith in the ability of the truth to sometimes be made plain here on TPF. Is that an example of faith, and if not, why not? What is faith then?

I don't think this thread has ever moved beyond my observation:

If we are going to do real philosophical work then we have to have real definitions. What almost always happens in these discussions is that the atheist builds their petitio principii right into their definition of faith. This is how the atheist ends up defining faith:

Faithath: "Irrational assent"
— Leontiskos — Leontiskos

Same.

I imagine that a contemporary Western religionists tends to envision a nuclear family that enforces patriarchy, heteronormativity, or other power dynamics. — praxis

The point I am trying to make is, there is probably a more philosophic conversation about “what is faith” to be had than “what is religious faith” has turned out to be here on the forum.

When I think of faith, I don’t necessarily think of God or religion.

But most here seemed to want to talk about God and religious believers.

So what I am saying above is, when I think of religious faith, I think of moms and dads loving their kids. The point being love.

Many on this thread, when they think of religious faith seem to think only of Abraham attempting murder, terroists bombing schools, etc.

(And that has nothing to do with how atheists must love their kids, which of course they do, because kids are just lovable).

So so much of this thread has obfuscated a philosophic treatment of faith, without need or basis, mixing it with what I see as bad theology, and completely unnecessarily.

I am happy to apologize for offending anyone who thought I was speaking to how they love their families.

But praxis, “a nuclear family that enforces patriarchy, heteronormativity, or other power dynamics” is, to me, completely off the topic of what is faith.

I appreciate your work here. I used to moderate a forum once. And I manage a team of people. People are a nightmare.

So you know, I don’t feel any worse treated than usual, and I’d still love to hear Banno’s response. I thought we were on to something interesting.

But I’ll defer to you.

Thanks

I wasn't aware that this was a potential bone of contention. — Banno

What an obtuse head you have.

“Faith is neither good nor bad.” - Banno
“For instance [insert heinous acts and atrocities]” - Banno
“Any examples of non-bad acts of faith, because you just said faith is neither good nor bad was so obvious? Anything good?” - FireOlogist
“[Insert some bullshit to avoid the simple question, or crickets].” - Banno

I’m happy for you that you have such certainty in your life about religion. It’s a big issue and you seem to have it all solid. Faith = shitstorm.

But then “neither good nor bad…”. Are you saying murdering martyr terrorists are neither good nor bad, because you are leaving me no other options.

Religious people, generally, are softies, to the core. Lots of moms and dads, loving their kids. Not many thoughts like you are all having.
— Fire Ologist
Pretty fucking rude. So atheists are none of them "moms and dads, loving their kids"? Fuck off. — Banno

So, what I said was when I think of faith, I think of moms and dad living their kids.

When Banno and others around here think of faith, they think of murder and heinous acts.

I didn’t say what atheists do or think about their kids.

You take me in bad faith.

Over and over.

To avoid dealing with my refutation of your adolescent and unoriginal caricatures of false religion.

Religious people, generally, are softies, to the core. Lots of moms and dads, loving their kids. Not many thoughts like you are all having.
— Fire Ologist
Pretty fucking rude. So atheists are none of them "moms and dads, loving their kids"? Fuck off. — Banno

What fallacy is the above?

What did I say about atheists? Nothing. How did you assume anything I was saying about atheists?

So - how is faith “neither good nor bad” as you said before?
— Fire Ologist
I'm not going over it again. Good to see you struggling with the conceptualisation, though. Keep going. — Banno

Because, like I said, maybe you can’t.

You’ve been caught in a contradiction.

Religion/religious fervour is the chief source of global harm. — AmadeusD

That is silly. Unless religion/religious fervor is also the chief source of global good.

Get rid of all religion, I guarantee you, harm by humans skyrockets.

Despite how it occurs to most people as they grow up and begin to think for themselves, Atheism is not a new discovery.

Ye who rebuke religion by excluding yourselves from it simply know not what ye do. I wish you knew.

And once the concern is all the things you say that are examples of religion, or how religion makes you immediately conjure up knife wielding schizophrenics in order to draw your pictures, you are really just talking politics, civil law, psychology, social crap. Not religion. Not even ethics.

I, like most of my churchgoing friends, speaking for all of them can tell you, 99 out of 100 of us want all the same basic rights, freedoms and laws and happiness for all people.

You cripple society by judging the religious so harshly. Just silly. Religious people invented “do not judge others”. Religious people invented “love your enemies.” Religion is also a source of hope for mankind. The source I would add, but certainly a source. Period. Historical fact.

Don’t be such a sour puss on those who are trying to love their neighbors as themselves.

I really don’t see evidence that many of you are any good at identifying heinous acts.

You’re not being very observant.

Religious people, generally, are softies, to the core. Lots of moms and dads, loving their kids. Not many thoughts like you are all having. That’s what a “theist” actually is 99 times out of 100 - a whole person, mostly like the family down the street who really cares about other people and makes sacrifices for those others.

But I wish we could just finish the conversation about what is faith instead.

Fundamentalists treat articles of faith as if they were empirical, evidence based facts, and that is where the trouble begins. If, instead, intellectual honesty prevailed and the faithful acknowledged that their faith is for them alone, between them and their God, so to speak, then they would not be arrogant enough to commit heinous acts purportedly in the name of God. — Janus

Don’t you see how none of what you just said addresses what I asked?

All of what you just said contradicts “faith is neither good nor bad” because that all sounds bad.

But supose that I have understood all you had to say, and yet still reject theism. — Banno

I’m not asking about theism. Never really brought up God first in this whole thread. I can’t seem to make you believe that I think there are non-theological ways to understand and act on, faith. And we haven’t even started that conversation.

Most of this thread has been theological/psychological and now political target practice with people shooting in different directions, occasionally hitting marks. But often off target. Like you bringing up theism to me here.

I’ve taken some steps to show you I understood what you had to say. I am trying to be clear about what is meant here, not suppose anything between us.

You ask me to “suppose you understand what I say.” No one here wants anyone to suppose what anyone else thinks - I want to hear it from you.

You said “faith is neither good nor bad.”

You said this. And I agree. That’s what I understand. What you said. So I suppose you understand what I said, because we said the same thing.

But if, as we both now agree, faith is neither good nor bad, why is it that everything else you bring up about faith has to do with fathers murdering their children and fools acting without evidence or reason? Or theism? Because that doesn’t sound “neither good nor bad” to me.

So the question is what do you think?

Me supposing you understand me won’t work, because “neither good nor bad” seems to contradict the murder, ignorance and irrationality involved in everything else you say involving faith.

I think we are all having the wrong conversation about faith.



Faith is belief in something particular. It is hard to see faith apart from having faith in. But it can be seen, but it cannot be seen apart from faith in.

If someone merely says “I have faith.” they have not formed a complete thought. No one knows much about the person who simply says that. There must be some context or content before this statement, or some after it, like “I have faith in X.”

Faith can involve belief in the existence of X.
It can be belief in the capabilities of X (whose existence you already assume or know).
You can have faith in another person.
You can have faith that another person knows something you don’t know, or can do something you can’t do, so you act on this faith and let the other person take the wheel, giving all control to the pilot, etc.

But faith is always the particular momentary act of believing in….X particular.

That now said, Banno, you also said it’s not the meaning or even the lack thereof that is most important (or most worrisome is how you put it), instead, it is what folk actually do that matters.

I agree with that.

But does this widen the precise, initial focus?

I do like keeping things action based and with as many empirical, measurable components as possible, as all acts do. So “what folk do” is good to keep close to “what is faith”.

But here, to me, the precise question is changed a bit to “what is a leap (act) of faith?” What does faith do or lead to?

If so, the conversation, to me, has to now involve two acts: 1) the act of believing that is involved in faith (belief in X without reason or evidence for instance) and 2) the act undertaken based on this faith as a springboard. It’s two acts now, so we have more work to do before we can start judging faith based on God and Abraham’s and jihad, and sacrifices and saints, and other particular “acts of faith.”

We are no longer just seeking to answer a question about faith; we are replacing this question with another two questions - faith and acts based on faith.

Right?

Everyone has leapt ahead. To do sketchy psychology, theology and politics.

So - how is faith “neither good nor bad” as you said before?

Or is faith really only weak justification for anything the faithful wants, mostly used in connection with heinous crimes?

I'm not that interested. — Banno

Maybe you are incapable?

I’m just happy I got you to admit faith of itself has no necessary good or bad to it. (Which I’m not sure you really believe.)

this thread is finished. — Banno

I guess we’ll never know.

Even so, it remains that the story is understood by many as advising one to maintain one's faith even if one believes that god is asking for an abominable act. — Banno

Understood by many? Well they are all wrong. But why are we really talking about this?


No offense to @Bitconnectcarlos, but I don’t think Banno will be converted here on TPF.

You seem to have covered that adequately. — Banno

So I covered the positive, beneficial acts of faith?

Can you show me where I did that? I didn’t think you noticed.

I’d rather hear you say something positive about faith yourself.

Because you did say:

faith of itself is neither good nor bad — Banno

Yet from pretty much everything else you said, faith just seems stupid.

But more importantly, I think it ties into a large problem in liberal, particularly Anglo-American culture, were nothing can be taken seriously and nothing can be held sacred.
— Count Timothy von Icarus

If true, why does this matter? Describe the problem to me. I'm not sure I see a lack of seriousness myself, but perhaps what you mean by this is many groups no longer read or follow traditional values. — Tom Storm

I’ll take a stab. The problem is, there are serious things to talk about. Lightness and sarcasm break the tension, but don’t resolve it. It’s not that groups don’t read the classics or follow tradition, it’s that they mock it, and maybe never tried to understand it, which would require they take it seriously.

I don’t think conservatives have any choice but to have a sense of humor. We are roasted really quite well by traditional media, higher education, and Hollywood, really quite soundly. I think Count’s point is conservatives sometimes want to be taken seriously too.

Ok cool.

But, are there any positive aspects to faith to talk about?

we should not entertain or discuss the negative aspects of faith — Banno

Not at all. Are there any other aspects of faith to talk about Banno?

If you don't believe there are no sound inferences then you would not say, "I can't see how there could be." People who can't see how X would be possible do not think X would be possible, and they have reasons why. — Leontiskos

Give a blind guy sight, take him for a walk on water, raise his brother from the dead, and he can still say “yeah, but how did you really do it?”

religious beliefs are only allowed a sort of freedom from condemnation in as much as they accord with liberal norms. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And the liberal version of tolerance towards the religious or other disfavored ones, doesn’t seem to involve any actual respect. As long as the religious keep their thoughts and practices to themselves, libs will tolerate them.

a large problem in liberal, particularly Anglo-American culture, [is] nothing can be taken seriously and nothing can be held sacred. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Certainly not in the public square.

You are making me question my own sarcastic sense of humor.

Feeling deeply about anything (thymos), or especially being deeply intellectually invested in an ideal (Logos), as opposed to being properly "pragmatic" (which normally means a focus on safety and epithumia, sensible pleasures) is seen as a sort failing. This is born out of an all-consuming fear of "fanaticism" and "enthusiasm" — Count Timothy von Icarus

To care about anything too deeply is to be vulnerable, potentially a "fanatic," or worse "a sucker." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Another thoughtful and considered analysis, clearly written. Good stuff.

today…Everywhere, at every moment, we are to engage in experiments in living.

It is automatically an idea worth trying, regardless of how many people it affects, if the idea has never been tried before, and it comes from the left.

On TPF, in this context, nothing you can say to me, should be limited in any way. I hope you speak highly of me and agree with everything I say, but if you don’t you should be able to say absolutely anything you want in this context (TPF sets some limits but they are so basic who cares, any normal person can basically say whatever they want around here.)

So, in this context, if you told me to murder my wife, or go running naked through the quad, and I did it, no one could hold you accountable for anything - not conspiracy to brake indecency laws, or for plotting a murder.

But in a crowded theater, dark, congested, maybe hot, and for some reason a little smokey, if someone yells “Fire! Fire! Run!” and people start running, his words can be said to have caused the running. If it turns out the smoke was some burned popcorn, but there was no fire, and someone was trampled to death, the law and courts and the US Constitution could hold the person who yelled “Fire” accountable for causing the actions that followed.

That makes sense to me. The pen is mightier than the sword - but we shouldn’t regulate that: but when the pen IS a sword, directly causing bloodshed, we should regulate that.

It’s about context. You don’t get to say whatever you want to whomever you want any time you want.

But at a town hall meeting in a political discussion, or on a philosophy forum like this, you should be able to say whatever you can possibly imagine saying.

Acts are not the consequences of speech — NOS4A2

Never?

You and your five sprinting friends are at the track at the starting line. Someone says, “On your marks…Get set….”

What act would follow someone yelling “Go!” at that moment? Nothing? Because acts are not the consequences of speech? Or would running and racing be the consequence of that little speech?

faith of itself is neither good nor bad — Banno

Yes, we agree.

I agree with that too. Democracies legislate themselves into paralysis and bitter faction.

And today with the media rooting for sides, faction ing has become profitable both for corporations and for political parties.

But in the end, the best way to a better world has to be by consent of the governed or the factions will just fight for dominance and pick each other apart.

Common sense is always the undercurrent. Always will be. But without good leadership representing we commoners, anything is possible.

True. I just mean from this earth. People will always move towards or revert back to democracy now.

Even if the reversion starts with a prison riot.

If you view gender as the same thing as Sex Assigned At Birth, then sure, the two are the same. — Wolfy48

No, I’m saying if I didn’t have a measuring stick that had nothing to do with how I identify things, I couldn’t take measure of what my assignment at birth meant or what sex meant or male or not-male, what is the same, what is different…

It is nonsense to discuss and figure out how male and female overlap, without discussing and figuring out how male and female cannot overlap first. — Fire Ologist

What is moral now may not be moral in the future — Wolfy48

And that is why today and into the future, we have to protect a society that can continue to make its own laws, to reflect its own changing values.

Democracy and the individual freedoms of self-government, it seems to me, are too obvious to ever really alter. Self-government will always be a facet of the better societies that will ever exist, from now on. And it can only be taken away from societies that have such freedom through bloodshed.

Live free or die. People who understand this mean it.

But I'd argue that there is a difference between the sex you are born as and the gender you identify as. — Wolfy48

What I’m saying is, I wouldn’t be able to see the difference between the sex I was born as and the gender I identify as, if “male” and “female” and “man” and “woman” and “gender” had fluid, changeable referents and meanings.

Hey Wolf,
There’s another thread here about this. My thought are here.

And I generally agree with you. Limiting any speech, by law, based on its content (meaning because you don’t like what it says) is the antithesis of a free society.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/988251

But the title of your OP here is a bit different. To protect freedom, should enslaving and oppressive speech be allowed? It’s like asking if we should be able to vote to change our government into a monarchy.

I think we have to say, yes. And rely on the powers of persuasive speech to win the day.

Or we simply are not free and will certainly be abused by the government.