It's like when Margaret Thatcher said, "There's no such thing as Society." If you really don't understand what she was saying, that's your choice. Most of us understand it perfectly. — frank

The question is, was she right? Of course I understand what she was saying. I also understand what it does when saying that. It was a way to get rid of social policy. I think that is always. Metaphysics, the question what is really real, is idle speculation. What we need to know is, what does ascribing 'reality' or 'existence' to a certain something do? The question is not 'does a promise exist'.

Sure. Oaths, covenants, verbal contracts, and promises are ideas that come to us as parts of a religious heritage. — frank

That seems a sociological claim, and to me a rather dubious one. Aren't covenants, verbal contracts and promises not just very handy devices by way of which we structure our relations towards one another? We do not need God to make them handy.

I think promises are for societies where people lie all the time. If you make an oath, you're signaling that you're telling the truth for a change. Otherwise, there's no difference between giving a promise and just doing as Jesus advised, "let your yes mean yes:" — frank

Welcome to current society. Lying is actually pretty common, "Does my ass look fat in that dress, no of course not honey", or "I will be at your brothers party on Saturday" When push comes to shove it is raining... Promising is a way to make the other reflect on his/her yes or no, it lends emphasis and indeed brings forth obligations, in more or less strong degrees of enforceability. That is also why parents ask their children "do you promise to be good?" . They know what a promise is before they had any religious education.

For us, all the divine trappings have fallen away. There's nothing but people talking, people behaving in a certain way. — frank

I would leave the 'nothing but' out, but for the rest I agree with you. Though stating that institutions are products of social action is something else than stating that therefore they do not exist. Thatcher's quote is often used as an example of methodological individualism. That position is not unproblematic. The 'I' that does things is also shaped by the institutions in which it exists. I am myself much more partial to Anthony Giddens' structuration theory.

People don't usually talk about whether promises exist somehow, but if we had to make sense of that, we'd say the proposition involved in the promise exists as an abstract object. — frank

No, they do not and probably for good reason. The only reason I can think of why it might be meaningful to discuss the existence of a certain something it to know what it does when we ascribe or take away the quality of existence of that something. If we decide on God not existing, prayer makes little sense. For this reason the existence of God is hotly debated I guess. What one does when one denies existence is to decrease them in importance. That is also what denying the existence of promises does. What holds for promises actually holds for all other concepts. Truth is also never found 'floating around', kindness is not, 'principles of good governance' aren't and so on. Yet all these concepts do things in the world.

it's an element of intellectual life. So yes, they exist. In another sense, they don't. — frank

If that is the conclusion I would think it merits some investigation in what you consider meaningful for existence. What does it matter for the existence of something to be an aspect of intellectual life? My hunch is that it is 'dirt and dunamis' as you put it in an earlier post. What advantage does it have to hold on to a position that cannot make sense of the distinction between rules of evidence and existence?

Perhaps we are indeed running around in circles, but I would like to know what attracts you to such a physicalist position? Materialism is all back in favour, but I am trying to wrap my head around why one would go out of his or her way to absolutize this position and rather deny the existence of anything else or relegate it to 'existing in some sense'. But well, if you see nothing in it feel free to disregard.

If you're not reading my posts, don't talk about htem - particularly using terms like 'trolling' which you are doing with that exact sentence. Tsk tsk. Civil discourse and all. But, in all honestly Tobias - your posts are crap. This has nothing to do with your mental abilities or you as a human. Your posts are crap. I'm allowed to say that. You taking personal offense is something you're going to need to work on. — AmadeusD

Of course you are free to point out that you think my posts are crap. I disagree with that assessment but that is to be expected. What is uncalled for is your incessant stream of arguments ad hominem and your condescending tone. Those are not needed and uncivil. I have every reason to take offense when I am talked to with disrespect. Of course probably in your world there is no such thing as rules of civil discourse as rules altogether lack the quality of existence, but in the real world they are certainly there. So, may I ask you kindly to please leave me be and go away?

↪Tobias You misunderstood me. No offense, but I'm not interested in pointing out how you misunderstood me, only to have you respond with the same misunderstanding. I'll leave it there. — frank

Fair enough. I would like to know where I misunderstood you, because indeed that does happen. But if I do not get to find out, alas. I honestly tried to address the points you made, that is all I can say. Philosophy, in my view, is the examination of one's propositions. In that vein my posts were written. If you find them unhelpful, you are free to disregard them of course.

Your point seemed to be that a marriage (that is without any other kind of evidence) may be a feature of the world by virtue of your attitude: — frank

Ohh no, that is not what I tried to convey. So maybe I did not formulate it aptly. A marriage is not constituted by my attitude, it is constituted by a certain procedure. It is an interesting procedure, it culminates in a 'speech act', as Austin called it. Me saying 'yes I do' has consequences for the state of affairs in the world, namely that I am no longer a bachelor, but a husband. The following of proper procedure causes a marriage to exist, not my attitude.

Note that what actually exists here is you demonstrating the behavior of assertion making. Compare this to the value of a currency. Literally the only fact regarding this kind of value is the way people behave. Imagine this exchange: — frank

Well, what makes the marriage exist or not is whether this procedure has actually taken place. If it has taken place, I, with good cause, attest and vouch for the presence of my marriage. Whether I can prove it is a wholly different matter, as provability is, at least under Dutch law, not a precondition for marriage. However, of course, it had to be registered. It not being provable anymore has no impact on the actual existence of my marriage. The ritual has been followed, the speech act has been uttered. I am married and the marriage has not been dissolved also according to procedure. Think of it this way: is there for you a difference in my utterance that I am married in case that: A the proper ritual has indeed been followed and B. the proper has not been followed? My argument is that I am telling the truth in case A., whether or not I can prove it and I am not telling the truth in case B, irrespective of proof. Therein lays the crux of the matter.

Compare this to the value of a currency. Literally the only fact regarding this kind of value is the way people behave. Imagine this exchange: — frank

Yes, but so what? Currency is a piece of paper to which we attach value, because it has been issued by a certain procedure. That is why currency which has been minted according to proper procedure has value and currency not minted according to proper procedure is actually valueless, the possession of which may actually cause legal trouble for you. Now of course, in a world that is blown to bits and is reduced to barter economy the value of that piece of paper might well become 0. No one wants to trade anything for it. But that does not mean that somehow its existence is of any less status than, say, a doorknob, which is also only a real doorknob because of the very existence of a door in which it has its proper place. It is also only a certain something within a network of all kinds of things. that is why I keep saying that at the core our disagreement is about metaphysics.

We could say value exists as part of an explanation for certain kinds of behavior. As such, it's an abstract object because it's possible to be wrong about value. It's like numbers, sets, propositions, etc. It's a resident of complex intellectual activities that bear on interactions with one another and with the world. But that's their only domain: intellectual activities. They don't exist out there with dirt and dynamos. So we have two ways of talking about existence. — frank

We do have come to the heart of the matter. That is that you feel you need some kind of material substrate for something to really exist, 'dirt and dynamis'. If there is not some material thing, it cannot really be a certain something. I think that is actually a metaphysical assumption which is not needed. It does not matter whether something is made out of wood or stone or whether something is made out of numbers on a bank account. A certain phenomenon is always a certain something in virtue of the network within which it has a place. You want to restrict existence to something existing as stuff, something tangible, material. I do not see a good reason to speak about existence in such a way. It leads to confusion and the instability of institutions. When you are asked 'are you married?', you would have to answer with: "well really not, you see, because actually marriage is unreal, there is no dirt involved (though I hope for you there is, but I digress ;) ) but we behave as if we are married". I would answer the question much simpler: "yes". (Or in my case, "no", but that is again beside the point.

This would require a dive into Wittgenstein's private language argument with a little help from Saul Kripke. Is that something you're interested in? — frank

I might though my vocabulary may well be different stemming from a different tradition. I do not see the link to private language though because the very existence of such institutions displays that we have no private language. We actually share a public like mindedness which makes such institutions possible. They are not subjective, they are the product of interactions. That is why I think here you mistake the horse for the carriage:

We could say value exists as part of an explanation for certain kinds of behavior. — frank

No, I think, value has come into existence because of certain kinds of behavior.

Can someone stop @AmadeusD from trolling about? He seems unable to discuss matters without peppering his responses with invectives on his interlocutor's mental abilities. I have not bothered to read his last post because it annoys me to be insulted.

Yea, I don't think he was being disingenuous. He just wasn't up for a discussion about ontology. He didn't seem to understand that his points were irrelevant. — frank

Maybe you can explain to me how they are irrelevant? I thought I was discussing ontology. The point I make and Banno agrees with is that in the posts of some people here the quality of being provable is mistakenly identified with the quality of existing or not. (Not sure if I have my analytic phil. terminology straight but you know what I mean.). That is an ontological point I would think.

Exactly. What exists in the world is you behaving as if there are certain rules you ought to follow. — frank

I am having trouble unpacking this. Are you referring to the existence or non-existence of rules? I am not trying to misrepresent your point, but from this it seems that you feel a rule does not exist perse but what exist is 'me behaving 'as if' there are such rules'. Why though would you hold that these rules do not really exist?

As far as I can tell...
Are morals arbitrary, random, mere matter of whatever opinion? No.
Are morals existentially mind-dependent? Yes.
I'm not seeing a problem with that, though. — jorndoe

Agreed.

I think he meant there is no fact regarding the existence of X. X does not show up in any way in the world. If something belongs to the set of all things that exist in our world, one expects there to be facts associated with this existence. This is not about knowledge. It's about the state of the world. — frank

But there is such a fact, namely my assertion that I am married. I attest to it, vouch for it, plead with my audience. I am simply not believed because others cannot corroborate my assertion and there are no records of it.

With regard to a promise of which there is absolutely no evidence, you might think your memory of the making of the promise would stand as a fact. Surely your mental states are facts of the world. But let's look more closely (with Kripke's help). How would you, yourself determine if your memory was correct? How would you answer that? — frank

I cannot know if my memory was correct. All I can do is remember something. I also know my memory is mostly correct. Of course, I might well be wrong and there are good reasons for the audience not to believe me. However, if I indeed made that promise, I have said "I will return the book to you", there simply is a promise whether it is recorded or not. I just cannot convince anybody else of it, and for good reason. Rules of evidence are important, but not to establish the ontological status of X, but merely whether I should or should not believe X to be the case.

In everyday practice we constantly end up in such situations. Let's say you told your friend you'd return him some money you owe, what do you do? I think you will return the money. Or will you think: "Well there is no written record of me owing the money and hey my memory may be wrong and so might his, so there is no need to return the money, the promise does not exist". No, of course not.

For example. I tell you there is a little man on the stairs, but this doesn't show up in any facts of the world. He's invisible and he leaves no trace anywhere. You can safely assert that the man doesn't exist. The same would be true for promises and marriages. — frank

I can safely assert it and I would probably be believed by all. However, if there really was such a man, I would still be wrong. He did exist, he just didn't leave a trace. You who told me there was such a man, were right, I was wrong. You won't be believed though, however, that is sad, as you were right all along. The same holds for promises and marriages.

Then you're flat-out wrong because the second part is false. — AmadeusD

And on what metaphysical theory are you basing that assertion? Common sense speaks against it. When I open my eyes the first impression of it is that what I see is real. I am not thinking, 'fuck, what I see here is amazing, but is it really real? I must find some evidence for that? Moreover, most of us assume that reality goes on being there after I die and I am not anymore around to perceive. However, any conclusive evidence for that is lacking. Your assertion collapses into the modest crude form of idealism.

If I promise my brother I will return a book to him I borrowed from him, I made that promise, no matter whether he can prove it in court or not. — Tobias

So you really want to hold on to the view that I did not promise my brother to return the book when there is no record of it? Even though I told him: "I promise i will return this book"? It 'poof', magically, just did not happen? Best not to take your word for anything then.

I don't care. You're stubborn in your incoherence so this is par for the course. — AmadeusD

You should care because you are violating rules of civil conduct. Last time I checked they were taken seriously on this website.

The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” she wrote. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.

It seems to me odd that contravening the democratic process (as assassinating a political rival clearly is) could be construed as an official act falling within the duties of the executive. But hey, I am not sure if under US law this is impossible. I find it odd, but I do not know.

↪tim wood What's nonsense is having barely read the SCOTUS opinion is you having such strong opinions about it. The decision is fine and fully in line with what I would expect coming from a Dutch legal background. Tobias maybe you want to have a look as well but I find the media reporting on this ridiculous and dissenting opinion confused. — Benkei

I haven't read it, so I also feel unqualified to make any statement on the matter. That this case is difficult and needs a tiered approach does not surprise me. It is actually a very complicated area of law for me, even in Dutch law I am not sure I understand exactly what the doctrine actually is. I reckon in the Netherlands, administrations cannot be prosecuted when they engage in the execution of ordinary affairs of state (Based on the so called 'pikmeer II' judgment). Executives of these administrations are immune when the administration they represent is immune. When I saw the summary of the US verdict, it reminded me of the Dutch doctrine. However, I think the US legal system is a different one, the historical context is different and the evil may well be in the details. I was surprised when Sotomayor argued vehemently against it, but I have also not read her dissent. I therefore feel unqualified to comment. (A very long comment to say 'no comment', but hey I also do law ;) )

If there is no evidence you are married, the marriage doesn't exist. — AmadeusD

You keep saying that and it is at the core of this whole debate. It comes down to the maxim: "What cannot be shown to exist, does not exist". I think that claim is wrong. We do not require evidence for existence. If I promise my brother I will return a book to him I borrowed from him, I made that promise, no matter whether he can prove it in court or not. The problem is that such a view undermines the ethical dimension of promise because it leads to the view that promises have no moral force per se, but only if there is evidence for it. Most promises are made orally, without any witness and have, in your view, no claim to existence, allowing me a lot of leeway with such promises, because if they do not exist in the first place, I may disregard them. Because how can I be bound to something that does not exist?
This view is, in my opinion absurd, and rests on a mistaken conflation of existence with perception. Banno and others have also pointed it out to you but you keep holding on to it. Fine, but do not expect me to agree with what I consider to be absurd.

Enjoy your day and kind regards,
Tobi

(Edit: I find the way you write offensive, facetious and displaying an arrogance which is I think both unnecessary and baseless. Therefore, from now on, I will keep any an all interaction with you to a bare minimum).

I was just making a joke. Amadeus often seems to be under the impression that, "His saying so makes it so." — Leontiskos

My apologies, I did not get it. We do share the same impression it does seem :)

What if the nuclear weapon wipes out the entire nation and the legal order. Would you still be legally married? Or would the legality of the marriage fall away and it become a purely natural marriage? — Leontiskos

Well, for me it is hard to think of a legal order to be wiped out in any material sense. The legal order is a good example of an immaterial concept, it is a web of relations, of habits and ideas accepted by the people in a community. Of course such a community could be wiped out, as you suggest, the nation is wiped out. Ok, let's look at the scenario. Bombs fell and we stumble over the rubble of our civilisation blindly and shell shocked. With some great coincidence you find your wife (or husband) back and she is a shell of her former self, hardly recognizing you. What would you say about how you know her and to tell her who you are? I think you would say "we are married remember, you are my wife". You would not say "we used to be married, but the marriage is annulled because our civilisation has been destroyed.

But, you might object, my point is whether legally you are married. Well I would say in the circumstance that there is no legal order anymore, it does not matter. There is no 'legally married' anymore, there is married or not married, it is of no legal consequence. Yet I am right to claim I am married. There is also no instance that can annul the marriage and say I am wrong, because such an instance is only possible within a legal order. The question becomes meaningless to ask. I though, in that scenario, still hold that I am married and rightly so. There used to be a legal order and I am married in proper process.

The question becomes meaningful again if a new legal order is established. I hold that I am married and start to tell my story before the person or rudimentary institution which has somehow obtained competence. Probably, if my wife still does not recognize me and says she knows of no such thing, the 'court' would tell me I cannot prove my marriage and that clearly the other party does not know about her marriage. The court cannot establish the legal fact of my marriage and would probably state that we have never been married. From that moment on I may cry and tell my sad story, but legally my marriage is not there anymore. The court establishes the facts and established them without my marriage. That does not make the court right. It established the wrong state of affairs as fact. But alas that is how law works at times. I was right before the court, my wife was wrong. However, the rules of evidence were in the way.

You might think I am just playing with words here. I intent not to. What I take issue with is the idea that something only exist when there is a record of it. That according to me confuses evidence with existence. For me it is simply 'if a tree fell and no one heard it, did it make a sound' all over again.

Where did he do that? My claim is rather simple: when I make a promise to X to do Y, the promise is made. Now Amadeus seems to state that when the promise cannot be proven it is somehow not there. That is a bit of a big claim in the face of the undisputed fact that I made that promise. The onus is on Amadeus to show that somehow promises (or marriages) magically disappear when no proof for them can be given. Of course in a legal regime, at some point this may happen, for instance when it states that I have no given credible proof for our marriage. The court may rule that I am not and have not been married to X. Ok. That however, does not in any way mean that somehow when I said that I was married to X, I was actually lying. I was not. By definition we were married, as it is given in the facts of the case. The court has established the facts wrongly, based on of knowledge and on the rule of evidence.

I do not see any convincing point, but maybe you do. I gladly see it, so please tell me if you are willing...

Yes. That's literally what it would mean. — AmadeusD

No. The non existence of registries is not among the limititative grounds for annulment of marriages under Dutch law. Therefore the marriage is not annulled. Just you saying so does not make it so. Your point comes down to when something cannot be proven to have existed it never existed. That is why your extreme materialist position lapses into idealism, but well, that point was beyond you.

here is no marriage to be annulled in that scenario — AmadeusD

There is my GF and I were married on the 10 of the 12th, 1998. It has not been disbanded. I just have no means of proving it.

The same way if your bank loses its server, you have no money. — AmadeusD

That might be because the money stopped existing. The marriage did not stop existing. The wedding ring may well be lost in that catastrophe as well, but so what?

You are very wrong, and adamant about it — AmadeusD

Mirror mirror on the wall...

It's not easy to pretend that's a reasonable position to take. — AmadeusD

I am doing a helluva job so far.

Your inconsistency is becoming funny — AmadeusD

Your face is funny.

that's going to make me mean — AmadeusD

You are not mean, just a bully and a silly one.

As you previously stated, Tobias, it depends on the legislation we are taking into account, but since you and I live under the "umbrella" of the European Union, there is a basic principle: the company does not exist if it is not recorded. If the company is not recorded, it becomes irregular and the stakeholders respond with their goods and not with the company's goods. I mean, without a registration, the company lacks of "affectio societatis" — javi2541997

I agree. The sale of a house in the Netherlands is also not complete until the asset is transferred and its transfer is recorded in the registry. There is sound wisdom is that, especially on a corporate level. People who are dealing with the company need to know on what kind of entity it can take regress. In order to minimize confusion the rule is that there is only a company when it is registered as such.

It is obvious that you still have some obligations to your spouse, but your marriage becomes "insufficient" as the legal codes of my country says. Specifically, the 61st of the Spanish Civil Code says: For the acknowledgment of the marriage it ought to be recorded in the civil registry.
If it is not registered, or you lack some certificate, you can lose some advantages. For example, in terms of taxes, it cannot be proven you are a family unit. In terms of perceiving a pension from the state, there could be problems of evidence that marriage existed, etc.
With the aim of preventing unfair results, the Civil Code provides basic rights and principles between spouses, but these are very basic. — javi2541997

I think under Dutch law a marriage also needs to be inscribed in the registry to enter into force. What I do not know is whether the marriage is dissolved when it is not anymore recorded because no such registry exists anymore. It might be, but I do not think so. Article 1:149 of the Dutch civil code mentions that a marriage can be dissolved on a number of grounds. These grounds are summed up limitatively which means that only those grounds have legal force. The eradication of a registry is not among them. Therefore I can only conclude that under Dutch law the marriage is not dissolved.

[url=http://]https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0002656&boek=1&titeldeel=9&afdeling=1&artikel=149[/url]

Of course there will be all kinds of problems with evidence. That is my point exactly. the points of evidence should be separated from the point of whether a marriage or some other promise of sorts exist or not. Of course the state might well demand proof of you being married and when no such proof can be given, the relevant institution may well treat the marriage as not having any force. That does not mean the marriage is gone though in any ontological sense. When I see my loved one after this horrendous catastrophe that destroyed all the registries, I will say "we are married". I will not say "I used to be married to you", and rightly so. The duties of the spouses to each other would still apply even though they are not enforceable in court due to issues of evidence. We still gave our word, we are married and the marriage is not dissolved, at least not under Dutch law as far as I can tell. (I am the first to admit though I am not very knowledgeable on family law).

Interestingly perhaps under Dutch law we know the figure of the 'natural obligation'. That is an obligation that cannot be enforced but is still there. The most prominent example of it is when a thief becomes the owner of a certain good due to the statute of limitation. Since he became owner the original owner cannot revindicate his or her property. Yet, the thief/owner is still under a natural obligation to return the good to the person he/ she stole it from. A lot of law simply serves to protect economic activity and trust in the system. It does not uphold ontological truths. I think that is where lots of the confusion lays.

False. I went through this giving examples of both conceptually. You are just wrong. A person claiming bare that someone promised them something isn't even a legal consideration. It's a nothing. A nonsense. It isn't going to even get you listened to by the judiciary in any form, unless you have some evidence. Even that, usually, needs leave to be adduced. — AmadeusD

It depends on jurisdiction and on where and when it is uttered. If I interview a witness than him or her saying that something promised them something, is relevant. Of course the defense can argue it is somehow not recorded but I as a judge can take into account whether I find this witness credible or not.

If you can't prove it in court, it probably does. If there is literally no record of your marriage, you are not married. That's how a legal obligation works. If you're conflating moral obligations with legal ones, that's a bit rich. — AmadeusD

No, that is not how legal obligation works. You confuse obligations with rules of evidence. If I am married legally and the marriage is not legally dissolved I am simply married. Say a nuclear weapon wipes out all the registries, then there is no evidence of my marriage anymore, but I am still married. I still have the legal obligation to care for my partner. There is just no evidence for the marriage and if I walk away from my obligation it cannot be enforced by a court. That though does not make the obligation somehow disappear, or the marriage somehow annulled.

You could have stopped here, acknowledged you have defeated your own point, and moved on. But here we go... — AmadeusD

You could have dispensed with your silly condescending tone, but here we go...

Why you are mentioning ontological positions is beyond me so I'm just going to ignore that dumbass conclusion. — AmadeusD

It is indeed beyond you but that is not really my problem.

It literally renders them non-existent. If you have a false memory of making a promise, does it exist? No. You can't prove it. You have absolutely nothing but your memory to rely on. THe promise doesn't exist. Your apparent attachment to it does. — AmadeusD

No, it If I remembered making a promise but I did not make a promise, there is no promise. If I think I see a pink elephant but it is in fact a figment of my imagination, then it does not exist. However not because I cannot prove that there is no pink elephant but because there is no pink elephant. The same holds for promises.

@Caldwell
@180 Proof
@Paul
@hyena in petticoat
@SittinWSocratesTiff
@Banno
@unenlightened
@Reformed Nihilist

it seems you believe query of whether everything is determined or not, outweighs 'what is.' In this way you suggest that 'determinism means that you can't tell the act was willfully chosen', but what is, is a indirect change in future happening before our eyes. — Barkon

I have absolutely no idea what you mean. I will try to make heads and tails out of it, but we may be talking past each other. I do not think one question is more important than the other one. I simply mean that your defense of free will is flawed. There are many indirect or direct changes (direct being caused directly by something and indirect meaning caused by something but via something else) the onus is on you to show that some of these changes have been willfully chosen and that that will itself is not determined by something prior to it.

Various neuroscientists suggests that what is chosen is a response of the brain to some kind of outside stimulus. What sets apart humans is that they have a function in the brain which rationalizes choice and gives an account of this choice. Those choices, even if the ancient perceives having made the choice by his own volition, was actually triggered by an outside stimulus. These finding are in line with materialist metaphysics. Everything we hear, see and feel is made of matter. Matter behaves in determinist fashion, therefore it is logical to conclude that you, since you are made out of matter act in determinist fashion.

Of course it could be otherwise, but than you have to account somehow for this fee will. It is a kind of uncaused cause (If it was caused it would not be free at least not in your definition of free will as it appears to me). Uncaused causes are very very rare things. So before I conclude there is such an uncaused cause, you should give me a good argument to believe in it.

To conclude, I have proven I can change the future indirectly by interrupting the flow of the present. I also assert that at junctions we can change the future directly. This is my argument that life is both determined and has free will, but neither purely. — Barkon

You have not proven anything because you have not proven that you have willfully interrupted the flow of the present. The claim of determinism is based on materialism. All matter that we can think of reacts to outward stimuli. When a rock is pushed and rolls from the mountain, we can predict its course and speed when we have all the information about the material characteristics of the terrain and the force of the push. You are made out of matter. It follows therefore that your matter reacts to stimuli. One of the stimuli is the threat of punishment which causes you not to run around like a criminal. If you want to postulate something undetermined, such as your 'free will', you cannot lay the burden of proof on the determinist and say you have proven something. The onus is on you to show there is some matter that does not react to stimuli and makes choices out of its own volition. That is the hard part of free will.

Now I am a compatibilist so I think there are arguments, but the route you have taken is fruitless.

Was it? Ottomans were well accomplished, but they took 200 years to take over an empire that had been declining for centuries, and that had been betrayed by its supposed allies. Claiming Ottomans were militarily above Europe feels to me a bit like claiming Goths were militarily superior to Romans. War and history aren't made based on who's stronger like a game, it is full of opportunism. — Lionino

They were militarily above Europeans because after the Roman empire the Ottoman empire were the first to have a standing professional army which requires a centralized bureaucracy. European troops were recruited from the local populace. They were also among the first to employ gun powder in an effective way, integrating it relatively early in their army.

As to the claim of "administratively behind", I won't even bother with that, as it can't be measured in any significant way, and I don't think anyone here has read the slightest bit on Ottoman governance (and governance of every other European kingdom of the same time). — Lionino

Of course it can be measured. For instance by looking at the scale of the economy and effectiveness of taxation, the strength of centralized administration and so on. As for Ottoman governance and no one reading anything of it, that is a bit of a tricky claim, I at least read 'Turkey a Modern History' by Erik Jan Zürcher which deals mostly with the latter Ottoman empire and the emergence of modern Turkey, but also treats the Ottoman Golden age. Moreover I read quite a bit on state institutions, not only of Turkey.

If Ottomans were militarily superior to Europe, they would not have been beaten by Austria. — Lionino

That is like saying if Europeans were superior why did they lose Jerusalem. There is more than technological superiority, for instance the length of supply lines. In the beginning of the modern period (16th century) the ottoman empire was huge, far bigger than the European states, but even they cannot reach everywhere. The same goes for the Mongolian khanate.

You went as a tourist. Everything seems better as a tourist, especially when we come from our small towns. But by chance you were lucky and did not see some resident foreigner fighting the police or harassing locals/tourists. In any case, whatever, replace Hague with Paris or Brussels or whatever undeniably dumpy European capital, the point stands. — Lionino

I did not come as a tourist. Why do you think did? I might live there no? Why do you think I live
in a small town? (The Hague might be considered a small town, but Istanbul is not)

I don't know what threatening to oneself means. Someone said the East was more advanced than Europe until recently. That is nonsense. Let's read up some history.
What's next, someone is gonna bring the Islamic Golden Age? Totally don't look up where that Islamic golden knowledge came from, stop before that part so you can prove yourself right. — Lionino

Of course you know what it means. In fact, you understood me well. What is wrong with the Islamic Golden Age? And what is wrong with the Islamic golden age being inspired by the works of ancient Greek philosophy? I do not hold onto the thesis that everything was either this or that. Philosophy, mathematics, strategy and what not are products of intermingling. You like to hold on to some sort of European exceptionalism claiming that somehow it has fixed borders and what not. In my view history itself is a social construction, as is Europe.

Jesus Christ, you have no clue what you are talking about. You don't even need genetic studies, which I have to refute your claim, to prove that wrong. Think: did the Spartans not leave any children behind? — Lionino

Ohh they certainly did, who intermingled with Turkish children, Albanians and what not. The point is that there is no trace of ancient greece in any of the Greek people currently alive. Just like there is no trace a Roman in any Italian. People mingle. The only thing that is real is the stories they tell, but they are precisely that, stories, usually used to aggrandize some sense of national pride. "I am Greek and not Turkish", even though their ancestry may well be similar. You do the same, trying to save some image of a pristine 'Europe', essentially the same through eternity and somehow essentially Greek and Roman.

It is another episode on TPF of Europe-bashing. — Lionino

Yeah that's it! We simply hate it.

Sorry that Europeans led the world in science and technology — Lionino

They only did for some time. During Roman rule perhaps and after the scientific revolution. Afterwards advances in technology were mostly made in the US and Japan. The problem as I see it, is that it is somehow threatening to your self perception to acknowledge the contributions of other peoples than Europeans. Now you are probably lamenting the demise of Europe and blame it on the dillution of European culture somehow. Only a Greek might feel pride when he/she sees the acropolis. That Greeks intermingled with the Turkish and other Balkan cultures and so probably there is no Greek person that can trace his heritage back to the ancient Athenians and Spartans is apparently of no concern. In your mind there is something essentially Greek and if you have 'it' then you can admire the acropolis otherwise you cannot.

Such notions are rather dangerous as history has proven, but they are also rather silly because what is European and is not, are not fixed categories. North Africa belonged to the Roman world, the Ottoman Empire belonged to what became known as the concert of Europe since 1856. Israel plays in European football competitions and sings in the Eurovision song contest etc.

Paris is a dump, London is beyond gone, Lisbon and Brussels are approaching a point of no return. Europe is busted. The belief that it is fine doesn't stand a one-week trip to De Hague. — Lionino

Compared to what? I live in the Netherlands and Den Haag (It is either Den Haag, or The Hague or La Haye as it is sometimes referred to, but not De Hague) was fine last time I visited.

The Mongolian Empire was more advanced than Eastern Rome and France in the 1300s? — Lionino

Advanced in what respect should be asked actually. I was unclear on that. I meant militarily more advanced, philosophically more advanced, economically, scientifically etc. Not in every respect medieval Europe lagged, but militarily and administratively it was behind the Ottoman Empire for centuries for instance. It held sway over the biggest city in Europe and had an advanced bureaucracy capable of fielding a standing professional army. The philosophical texts of the Greeks were studied mostly in the East, in North Africa and Spain.

I don't think you have any clue what you are saying.

That rarely happens.

It is a compliment, unless you want to admit to being a hypocrite, lightly bringing up the Mongol Empire "as more advanced" without any condemnation of Gengis Khan being a mass rapist and his reign killing off almost 20% of the whole population of Eurasia, estimated around 37.75–60 million. — Lionino

An empire can be militarily advanced, allowing it to kill of 20% of the population of Eurasia... That does not make the violence more or less abhorrent. Did you mean with advanced, morally advanced? Then Europe is in a bit of a pickle having colonized most of the earth. Unfortunately, technological advance is often coupled with conquest. That is why the Turkish and Mongols were capable of penetrating deep into geographical Europe and that is why Europeans managed to colonize other people. I am not talking morality here. I am not not in the business of giving compliments or condemnations, at least not here..

Europe overtook the East starting in Antiquity, it is not a recent thing. — Lionino

And you are basing that claim on what? Between 500 and say 1500 Europe was neither technologically, nor militarily or scientifically more advanced then China, Islamic Egypt, the Ottoman empire, the Mongolian khanate etc. The biggest cities and centers of learning were in the East, i.e. Constantinople, Baghdad, Cairo. In Europe only Italy had something of an urban culture. As far as I know my history, philosophy and sociology of course.

Thanks for the compliment :strong: :fire: — Lionino

Why is that a compliment? Only if you have some sort of normative commitment to violence being a good thing might this be construed as a compliment.

IIRC, there was no "Europe" until Charlemagne's reign. Several centuries later, in the wake of "the Black Death", my guess is Magna Carta (proto-republicanism) + plundering the Americas, etc + "The Renaissance" gave Europe its modern direction. — 180 Proof

The funny thing with history is that it creates while it describes. It reconstructs a story that presumably explains why things happened in such and such way, but in fact becomes an integral part of that history and constitutes the its very own object. The landmass may have been called Europe by some guy called Ptolemy, but so what? It is only relevant because we now through our construction of history hold Ptolemy in high regard. When we recount the story of 'Europe' we recount events that presumably sets it apart from other places. Magna Carta might be one, but I reckon other peoples experienced their 'magna carta' moment. It is through featuring in the historical tales of Europe that it had a place.

I doubt the history of Europe is dissimilar from the history of other places. It is through conquest that 'Europe' became a thing. Not by being a 'thing in itself' but an entity developed, adorned and embellished by Europeans and therefore important since Europeans held sway in huge parts of the world. If anything was important it is the emergence of the scientific method which allowed Western Europeans to develop better weaponry than its enemies, most notably the Ottoman empire. Before that it generally followed developments in the more advanced civilizations of the East. Scholasticism to me is not a candidate for any special status. Islamic and Judaic philosophers were more adapt at it, or at least equal.

Back in the day here on PF we would bash each other's heads in argumentatively over the continental analytic divide. I am trained in continental thought and remembering in my naivety wandering into a book store coming away with a book on Aristotle. I eagerly unwrapped it only to find that it was written in the analytic style and full of intricate predicate logic I did not understand. So much so for being accessible. However nowadays I feel both camps are reading each other with more charity.

I am now reading a book on Hegel's philosophy of right which is written in quite an analytic style (at least for me) with a lot of emphasis on untangling the argumentative structure of the book. I find it is written crisp, clear and indeed exposing holes in Hegel's arguments but never disparaging and reading charitable. I think both camps profited from the interaction and considered putting an end to mud slinging.

I think philosophy, in the end, is about questioning presuppositions and, what comes down to the same thing, discovering the rational in the real, as per Hegel. It might well not be there, but we like to understand the world we live in, understanding in a full sense, not merely explaining its mechanics. The branch of enquiry that does such a thing we call philosophy. It might well be idle chatter, but then, everything might be. It depends on the distinction between idle and useful and how that distinction is made, often implicit. Making the implicit explicit is however the bread and butter of philosophy.

Promises don’t exist; they occur. Obligations can exist. But I do not think a promise confers any. Can’t see any argument here from either yourself or Banno that gets close to satisfactory — AmadeusD

How can something that does not exist occur?

Ignoring the glibness of your other responses, this one shows I may not even need to address them. — AmadeusD

Of course you do not need to address them, only if you want to. My reply apparently drew you in, so you wanted to.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and anyone who thought this even constitutes a defense or a sensible thing to say regarding a charge around threatening to kill isn’t thinking, or has no clue what they’re talking about. — AmadeusD

Indeed. It shows that utterances, whether they are recorded or not, have actual legal consequences.

You’ve described a constructive trust. — AmadeusD

I have no idea whether I described a constructive trust or not. I am not familiar with common law legal terminology. I also do not know whether promissory estoppel "relates to a provable, recorded promise on which one relies.", but I take your word for it. Of course there might be legal facts the coming into being of which relies on them being registered. However, not all legal facts rely on them being recorded and entered into a registry of sorts. It is also wholly beside the point.

You’re discussing hearsay. “A judge would make short work of that defense”.
If your claim relies on a mere oral promise and you have no record of it, you will be ordered to pay costs. Having credible witnesses is a record. Best to read thoroughly ;) — AmadeusD

The point is this. You equivocate having evidence for a certain obligation with the obligation per se. The obligation is there, whether you have evidence for it or not. Let's say I am married, but the witnesses have died and I lost the certificate of our marriage. Of course I am still married, I just cannot prove it. My lack of proof may well lead to my claim being rejected in court, but courts are no arbiters of ontology. They adjudicate claims. If I cannot prove my claim, then it is tossed out of the window, it is as easy as that, but that does not mean my claim to being married is somehow false. That is what I mean with this:

What it shows is that when one view is being absolutized, it generally reverts to its opposite. Here this utter materialistic view of law reverts to an idealist view. — Tobias

Your materialist view, taken to its logical consequence, leads to idealism, 'to be is to be perceived' in your case, 'to be is to be recorded'.

Obligations can exist. But I do not think a promise confers any. — AmadeusD

Of course it does. If I would be a judge in a criminal court I might ask a witness to promise to tell the truth when she is being interrogated by me. When she in fact promises to do so, she is under oath. Her not telling the truth makes criminally liable. You merely thinking that this promise does not convey any obligation to tell the truth does not make it different. My hunch is that you are thinking of unrecorded promises. They are indeed unenforceable, because of the rules of evidence. That does not render them non existent though. The promise is there, the obligation has arisen, it simply cannot be proven. That is why I think your view comes down to a rather crude form of idealism.

It is best not to blur the real/imaginary divide. Even though Imaginary things do exist, and have real consequences. A man imagining a tentacle monster in front of him shouts and waves his arms in the real world.

A promise is just as imaginary as that monster. — hypericin

Of course not. That tentacle monster is not there, he merely thought it was. The promise may well not be a figment of his imagination, but a promise he made and is now bound to keep. One is unreal the other is real, quite simple.

If there is no record of your company existing, it doesn't exist. Fact. — AmadeusD

I love it when people put 'fact' after their statement. "Ohh, if you put fact, well now, clearly, it must be true...."

If you have time, could you tell us if a contract, marriage or mortgage ceases to exist if the documents on which it is written are destroyed?

Since in many cases a contract does not even need to be written down in order to be valid, it would be odd. Wills are an obvious exception.

Sorry to bother you with such trivialities. — Banno

No bother at all. Cic already commented so I do not have much to add but something interesting is going on here, so I will venture anyway.

In the Netherlands oral agreement can lead to obligations, just as a written contract can. Under Dutch law an agreement is reached when one person makes an offer and another accepts it and unless stated otherwise by law the form of both offer and acceptance are free, meaning oral agreement suffices.

Of course there are issues of evidence when one tries to enforce oral agreements. It may well be difficult to prove in a court of law. It is not impossible though, one may call witnesses for instance.

Of course, this does not mean that ownership is transferred immediately, That depends on the successful delivery and some deliveries entail the registration of a deed, for instance when buying and selling real estate.

In marriage witnesses are especially crucial because they may vow for the marriage in case one loses the necessary documentation.

So indeed, obligations can come into existence without any material pendant of the agreement.
The question to ask is why some people feel so uncomfortable with that

What bizarre, magical thinking. As if, *poof!*, a newly minted promise, shiny and golden, floats down from The Land of Ought.

The promise exists in the mind of the promiser, and their audience. That's it. — hypericin

Yes indeed a newly minted obligation emerges and binds me, because of the communicative connection between the parties to the agreement. This obligation exists in the sense that it can be a subject of communication (hypokemenon), it can be considered, it can be fulfilled, I can, in the worst case scenario, be incarcerated for not delivering on it and the other party, might when he has a court order to that extent, take my goods to make good on the obligation.

Modern society is in fact based on the existence of stuff without a material counter part, take money for instance. Money in our day and age does not have material pendant necessarily.

My feeling is that people who insist on the necessity of a material part to anything that exists, do so out of both some passed on Aristotelian intuition but also because they feel that immaterial things are somehow fleeting, they are 'less real' because they seem less durable.

But if the records are destroyed those things do not persist. They are the record of “promise” as you put it. — AmadeusD

It is interesting to see that apparently 'persistence' is the issue. Amadeus position comes down to, 'existence means to persist and persistence happens if there are physical records of it'. So that which is not recorded does not persist and that which does not persist does not exist. This is actually our beloved bishop Berkeley making an appearance on Christmas day... ;) What it shows is that when one view is being absolutized, it generally reverts to its opposite. Here this utter materialistic view of law reverts to an idealist view.

This isn't the case with plain promises though. AS far as i'm concerned, promises don't exist in an of themselves and confer no obligation. — AmadeusD

In a court of law you are not really of concern. "Hey I solemnly promised to kill my father in law at the Christmas table, but you see the promise does not really exist so sentencing me for threatening murder is not warranted". A judge will make short work of that defense.

"Of course I offered to sell you the house for E200.000 and you accepted, but you see, it was only an oral promis and no obligation occurs from purely oral promises and so yeah, I sold it to my cousin instead". Well, I suggest not dealing with a Dutchman as you might well find yourself paying indemnification because of your rather outlandish views on promises and obligations.

Disclaimer: apologies if all of this has already been dealt with in this 40+ page threat or when it derails more than enlightens. Merry Christmas all of you!:flower:

But it all still doesn't make it true.
It's just delusions, illusions, fantasy, wishful-thinking, & human's futile hope, wishes, imaginations, dreams, expectations, theories, etc etc etc — niki wonoto

What makes you assertions anymore true than theirs? Give a bit more of an argument otherwise it is just a silly rant.

I read an article about Hegel, the author stated that "synthetic a prior knowledge regards the formal cognitive structures which allow for experience." is this really right??
My reading of Kant....I never thought that "synthetic a priori knowledge" “makes experience possible,” but basically gives us (makes possible) a lot of human knowledge (mathematical, geometrical, and metaphysical judgments, etc.). — KantDane21

The quote is correct as far as I know. synthetic apriori knowledge makes experience possible. It is what is pre-given in every possible experience. Time, space, quantity, quality, etc are necessary for us to have experience at all though the categories themselves are not analytic. That is the whole Copernican turn no? (Sorry to jump in)

edit: maybe I should say "makes experiential knowledge possible". I do not know if that is the same as experience per se. Kant does ground his empirical realism in his transcendental idealism. The ideality of the categories allows us to acquire knowledge and ascertain its truth at least intersubjectively.

Therein lies the rub. Should I be compelled to rescue a child being attacked by a small dog that doesn't really pose a threat to me but still might bite me? Save a person dangling from a cliff where I might break a leg if I fall too? Pull someone out of a burning car that might explode? Give some of my extra food to starving people? Give some of my money to uninsured people who need a life-saving expensive operation? By being a member of society we kind of do that with our taxes, but that's a step removed from out-and-out punishing someone for not being a good Samaritan. — RogueAI

The legal technical issue should be separated from the normative one I think. The Dutch article (Art. 450 DCC) stipulates that only if there is no danger for yourself or others one should do so, only in case of an immediate danger and one can only be prosecuted if the situation led to the actual death of the person to be rescued so it is a very conditional duty. Circumscribed like this, It will not be prosecuted very often.

The legal normative issue is whether a person should be punished by the state if he does not help. I think the issue can be tackled in two ways. One way is to state that the potential helper bears no guilt in the situation. Her actions have not brought about the dangerous situation and since punishment requires guilt there is no ground for punishment.
One could however also see it as an extension of the rules of care and negligence. Firstly, we are required to aid people entrusted to our care, even when the dangerous situation arises without us having brought it about in any way. This article extends the circle of people to care for to those in the immediate vicinity and in immediate danger. One has to witness and be aware of the danger to which the other is exposed.
Secondly, negligence also involves a very small level of guilt. This situation could be considered as a case similar to negligence. You are not helping even though it comes at no fundamental cost to you while an important legal good (Rechtsgut in German) is being endangered, the life of your fellow man, then and there. Not helping in such a situation manifestly displays a callous attitude towards the well being of those around you that the legal order is upset with such a negligent attitude towards the other. In such situations we may have a legitimate expectation that we will receive aid.

I can see reasons for both ways to deal with the issue, but narrowly formulated I do not consider such a duty to be manifestly unreasonable. Most of your examples would not lead to prosecution but not rescuing a child from a shallow pond might, and yes perhaps not rescuing a small child from a dog that you might easily handle, aiding someone who had an accident etc. But then, how much on an onerous duty is that compared to the endangered life at stake?

I thought it was just if you were a member of certain occupations. Looking it up, I see California, the state I'm in, has no "duty to rescue". Only three states require you to help someone (beyond calling 911): Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Vermont. — RogueAI

That merely says that duties of care in the criminal sense are rare in the US, not that they are rare in most legal systems. Perhaps the US is the odd man out. I think here the difference shows between continental (civil law systems) and Anglosaxon (common law) systems. There are problems of jurisprudence with the notion of good samaritan duties though because it is difficult to establish what behaviour is required exactly.

1), I'm not sure you should be forced to save a drowning kid. It would be nice if you did, but do we want government compelling charitable acts?
2) Forcing a woman to give birth is not even close to risking an ear infection. It entails months of pregnancy and birth has all sorts of complications and a non-trivial mortality rate. — RogueAI

There are plenty of states that compel a duty of care actually. The Netherlands and most continental European countries have this. Penalties are relatively mild though up to 6 months if I remember correctly. Tobias maybe you remember more details? — Benkei

I believe it is three months max penalty, if one does not aid a stranger who is in direct danger of losing his or her life. If it is someone who is in your care though, like your child or pupil then the penalty may be two years.

The max penalty is I think not that relevant though. It is indeed a signal that the criminal law sends that we expect of you to aid someone who's life is on the line. I do not like criminalization in general, but how terrible is it that one should aid someone in need if one can? Some sort of self ownership argument but I feel those arguments are bollocks anyway. You live your life aided all the way by society and its order, why not expect from people to give something back? Of course it should not impinge on autonomy, but arguably being able to count on the aid of others increases the autonomy of individuals overall.

Thanks Hailey, that is nice to hear! :)

A Leonard Cohen triple inspired by the short stories and poems...



Dreamlike, such as many stories are and poems are, the reflection of thinking is a jumbled, topsy turvy of images...



Loss and love. That where all the images lead us.



And this is for the stories yet to come.

Touching on the question raised by Tobias, the dialogic nature of philosophy means that one should not simply accept or reject the work of the philosophers, but rather to remain open to what they might teach us, and to the possibility that there may be questions without answers and problems without solutions. — Fooloso4

Well put! :100:

If a method guides and shapes the inquiry then how confident should we be that this method does not occlude free and open inquiry? — Fooloso4

What is 'free and open enquiry'? We are always shaped, whatever method we choose even if we do not choose one. Seems to me to be part of the human condition. I do not know anything that is 'free and open'.

I've been wondering about this for some time. I've decided that many people have a philosophical imagination and are fond of asking philosophical questions and this may of itself be doing philosophy. But I suspect in most cases, this will also be 'entry level' philosophy - having fun in the shallow end of the pool. Nothing wrong with it, but I suspect unless one is a Wittgensteinian level genius, one is going to continually reinvent the wheel, become lost in one's independent investigations and generally fail to benefit from significant extant philosophical wisdom. — Tom Storm

:up: :100: exactly!

You've missed my point. I spent my career as an engineer formally and rigorously making and defending arguments very similar to the ones I do here on the forum. I didn't have to do professional level philosophy in order to gain that experience and skill. — T Clark

Sure, but I never challenged you on that... There must be some kind of misunderstanding. I never addressed you in my posts as either a philosopher or not.

I make rigorous arguments about mysticism here on the forum all the time. It is one of the main subjects I'm interested in. Equating mysticism with faith is either a cheap rhetorical trick or a display of lack of understanding. — T Clark

Yes exactly... you make rigorous arguments about mysticism. At such moments one practices philosophy, not mysticism. I am a lawyer and I also write about law sometimes from a philosophical perspective. When I am practicing law I am not doin philosophy but law. When I write about a certain presupposition in the law I a doing philosophy of law. Philosophy of religion is a very worthy philosophical subject.

As the comment you quoted from my post notes, DingoJones did present a thesis and argue for it. — T Clark

The only posts of his I saw in this thread contained only a couple of lines and came down to the idea that whenever you wonder about a philosophical question you are doing philosophy. You can take that position, but I think it is inadequate. It makes everyone that wonders about some phil question from time to time a philosopher which makes the term as a term with which we differentiate among people and practices rather meaningless. It is like calling everyone who sometimes wonders about law a lawyer. Since we all wonder about law from time to time we are all lawyers.

I think the best way forward is to consider what philosophy consists of as opposed to other branches of thought and other disciplines, such as mysticism, art, religion, science, law etc. Then the question became whether philosophy is by necessity social. Well, philosophy had its origins in social praxis and dialogue. Early philosophical texts were set up as dialogues. A reason I guess why Banno referred to the symposium as its natural home. Of course we have drifted from it now and it is possible of course to have a truely natural talent who manages to think up everything from scratch. It is highly unlikely but of course possible. Normal human beings though need introduction to the practice just like they need introduction to the practice of law and of scientific enquiry. That was what the OP asked for, a method to do philosophy. Is sitting in your cave all by yourself adequate? No, unless you are the philosopher Hercules.

What is necessary is to engage with philosphers or at least an audience and explain your ideas in argumentative form. An oracle or a prophet is not a philosopher. A mystic gaining access to the truth by meditation is not a philosopher. Of course all these people can be philosophers as well as mystics. That happens when they translate their mystical experience in argumentative clear language and offers them to the community of philosophers for scrutiny and analysis. Again, it may be that someone produces PhD level work alone in a cave, but how likely is it? My thesis is that just pondering philosophical questions is not enough to qualify as a philosopher. You need to conform to some extent to the standards laid down in the philosophical community. Just like a child who draws is not yet an artist just by engaging in the artistic practice of drawing.

Are we talking about whether I am a philosopher - I've never claimed to be. I was talking about whether Taoism is philosophy. — T Clark

No, I was not referring to you specifically. Taoism may be philosophy. I do not know enough about it to say so.

Philosophy is not the only method for learning how to think rigorously. — T Clark

That is the same fallacy as Dingo committed. I am not saying that philosophy is the only discipline that requires rigorous analysis. Law, mathematics, actually every scientific endeavour does. I am saying rigorous analysis is a part of philosophy. It is actually what sets it apart from mysticism or faith. Mysticism does not require argumentation, but revelation.

This is clearly not true. You say "My claim is that philosophy needs dialogue..." DingoJones gives counter-examples, which is a valid method of argumentation. You may be unconvinced, but I've heard that isn't the standard by which we should judge philosophy. — T Clark

What standard can we agree on to judge what is philosophy and what is not? At the very least a a kind of thesis has to be presented and argued for. People who contemplate life universe and everything on their own without engaging in argument do not do that. Sure Yogis, monks, bishops can and often were philosophers, but they were when they engaged in philosophy. Not when they contemplated on their own. It may be a definition question. You might say "everyone who thinks about philosophical questions is a philosopher". Fine, but completely unhelpful because everyone at one time or other thinks about philosophical questions.

Gregor Mendel's studies on genetics were never published until after he died. Would you say he was not a scientist? Emily Dickenson's poems were never published while she was alive. Would you say she was not a poet? I think your opinion of what it takes to be a philosopher is a bit high-falutin. — T Clark

He wrote them down didn't he? If he never wrote his ideas down then no, he was not a scientist. He did and preserved them for others to read, presented arguments, proofs and what not and sure, because it made sense what he wrote, he was a scientist. Same with Dickenson, mutatis mutandis.