I think you're right that a state legal order would see the open-carrying of weapons as reckless. It is a threat to its monopoly on violence. — NOS4A2

Just a slight correction: I am not saying that free carrying of arms is reckless (though one might argue that), but recklessness is a specific form of intent under US law (as far as I know). It might be reckless to bring a gun to a riot just as it may be reckless to leave a jar of rat poison easily present to hand at a children's party.

Curious question: do you know why the Dutch lost their right to bear arms? Have they ever had it? — NOS4A2

Interesting question. As far as I know there was never an explicit right the bear arms. Under Napoleonic law, in force since the beginning of the 19th century regular citizen's were forbidden to bear arms. It was not forbidden though to own a fire arm. During a short period in the late 19th century guns were free but have been restricted again since 1890 Especially during the period after the abolution of the Napoleonic codes there were parliamentary debates whether citizens should not have the right to own and bear arms for self defense.

In 1919 apparently it became forbidden to deliver fire arms to people without a permit. Therefore it was not criminalized to own a fire arm, but they could not be bought or sold to people without a permit. Possible the restrictions on fire arms were to quell the threat of revolution after the first worl war. So yes, it had to do with the state increasing its grasp on the citizens, out of fear of socialism ironically.

But your question about whether his carrying a weapon into a riot should contribute to his blameworthiness is interesting. I say it does not. He has the right to open-carry that weapon in that state (I’m not sure about carrying concealed weapons). He wasn’t out there committing crimes. His attackers are aware he is carrying it. And he used it to defend himself from attack. Why would a legal system ascribe more blame to this scenario? — NOS4A2

Well, one theoretical argument I could think of is that it is very reckless to bring such a weapon to an already very tense situation, adding fuel to the fire so to speak. It is not a pocket knife but a weapon which is meant to cause severe injuries. If you bring that, it is foreseeable that it might be used. Using such a weapon quite foreseeably leads to deaths. A legal order might well react to this reckless behaviour, just as it might react to me having rat poison open on the table when there is a children's party at my house. Rat poinson is legal, but if the child eats it and dies I might well face charges of manslaughter. In any case culpable death, different states use different terminologies here. This is a theoretical argument right. I know such duties of care are far less prevalent in US jurisdictions than they are in European ones.

A second theoretical argument centers around the monopoly of violence by the state. Unless in matters of self defense the use of violence in most jurisdictions lays at the level of the state. It is actually an issue of internal sovereignty. The state should be able to guarantee the peace, that is why most jurisdictions, including as far as I know the US, outlaw vigilantism. That would give a justification for prosecution because it amounts to a threat to public order to increase the possible potential for violence.

Apparently the weight of these argument does not carry much weight in the Wisconsin court room. It is speculative, but I think interesting speculation to answer the question why it does not. I think in the US the notion of standing your ground is more ingrained in the mentality of the people and the sense of what 'law abiding' means. The US is shaped by frontier communities, on which the 'law of the land' did not always have firm grip. I think it might have a more decentralised ideal, valuing the settling of scores outside of legal means, people needing to 'stand up for themselves'.

The state as a centralising force, claiming the power of the sword for itself, might also be much more mistrusted in the US then in Europe. There the second amendment comes in. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now it is questionable what 'well regulated militia', means but I can follow the originalist interpretation that it means that citizens should be able to form an armed, countervailing force against the state. It is therefore an explicit check on the monopoly of violence of the state. That too might mean that the self defense justification is more weighty than in other legal systems. The state does not claim as much sovereignty and therefore does not give the concomittant guarantee of enforcing the law, meaning one should have more room for self defense.

There is however something funny with that right. I can see the well regulated militia, but it does also seem to idnicate a check on the right to bear arms. One has it in the service of a well regulated militia, so within an organisation that can keep order. Lone wolfs carrying semi-automatic weapons seem to be out of the bounds of a well regulated militia.

Now I find these theoretical diversions interesting, without passing judgment. I am just trying to understand. Practically there seem to be arguments for more strongly enforced gun control. I see such an argument of 'stand your ground' and well ordered miltias working in societies of free and equal people. In such a scoiety, all have equal opportunities to join this militia, all have property to defend and so detererence might indeed work. If you tressass my land I may shoot, just as you may shoot is I tresspass yours.

In a society though with marginalised classes, it becomes problematic. The well regulated militia does not represent 'the community' but it represents powerful segments within it. The militia does not become a counterveiling force of the people against the state, but a force extending the power of the state over groups this militia may find suspicious or troublesome. People with nothing to lose might form militias of their own and the question becomes why one is outlawed the other is not. In such a situation the self defense claim becomes more questionable. If I do not have property to defen, I have no basis for a self defense claim, but for me the state is not 'free'. Justified or not it leads to claims that one group will always walk free and the other is criminalized. In such a scenario the 'well organised militia' does not help to constitute a bond between the citizenry, but to disrupt it.

The Dutch system is probably a fine legal system, but completely irrelevant in both jurisdiction and rights. I’m not sure why we’d compare them. — NOS4A2

You raised the question of desirability, not me. I just find it interesting to see whether Benkei's take holds or does not hold under US law. Sushi pointed out it does not. That makes comparison interesting. Comparative law is an interesting subject in and of itself. I at least find it of significance whether a legal system accounts for culpa in causa or does not. The question would than be what would explain this difference, is there a theoretical argument for valuing one over the other, or is there not, what are the societal consequences of this difference, etc. Those are the interesting questions to ask form a legal philosophical or socio-legal point of view.

The verdict itself does not belong on a philosophy forum without any theoretical point. I am also not arguing the acquital, I do not feel in the position to judge the case, nor should I. I just feel an interesting point of law is at issue.

My point was that deterrence and self-defence is the most likely intent to open-carrying a weapon. — NOS4A2

I am also not arguing that. In fact I belief in the case at hand the defendent said as much, namely that he wanted to protect the property from rioters. The question is, should his carrying of that weapon than and there, knowing what danger it could present, weigh into the level of blameworhiness we ascribe to his actions. Under Dutch law it would be a factor, under US law it would not (apparently).

I don’t know about you, but my own common sense dictates that I would not go near anyone carrying an AR. Even so, it obviously did not deter the attackers. — NOS4A2

Auto self refutation, I love it when that happens.

Nobody but the Dutch particularly care about the Dutch attitude toward the Rittenhouse verdict. — frank

Similarly, nobody but you cares about your take on the Rittenhouse verdict. In fact you probably never spoken a word or wrote a sentence anybody should care about.

Thank god it is not up to Dutch law, then. — NOS4A2

Last time I checked a perfectly fine legal system in well ordered society.

The US has the 2nd amendment, and in Wisconsin a man can bear arms for security. In other words, a man can carry a gun with the intent to protect himself. — NOS4A2

And such a relief it is one has that right and certainly that others have this right too, makes me feel so much safer

“Simply being armed” is not only a deterrent but an effective means to defend one’s life from violence. — NOS4A2

Ohh... Perhaps the people from Columbine feel different... And of course you have facts and figures to back this claim up? According to our world in data the homicide rates in the US were on 6.1 per 100.000 people whereas those in the Netherlands are at 0.9. As a US resident the chances to falling victim to homicide is 7 x higher. Of these homicides, half were committed in the US by fire arms while in the Netherlands this was one in five.

Of course there are fluctuations especially given that the Netherlands is a small country. Anyway, being armed seldom deters. In times past when the state did not have the means to enforce its monopoly on violence the level of violence was much higher than it is now.

Given that both the deceased attacked him and tried to grab his weapon, it appears that’s what Rittenhouse did, and we need not construct any intent beyond that. — NOS4A2

Well that's the question innit Saul? Should putting oneself situation in which one has to use lethal violence weigh into the blameworthiness of it? Here apparently Dutch and US legal systems part ways. But perhaps the legal subtleties are beyond you. whether this case is self defense does not interest me. It is a theoretical point of law.

It is not intent simply to be armed. There is a case where someone got involved in a fight walked out to his car, took out his gun and then proceeded to shoot his attacker. — I like sushi

No, but intent is constructed when you go to a conflict situation, armed with an assault rife (mind you not something to hunt deer with) and you state you want to protect property from rioters. You are not 'simply being armed' like I am simply carrying a notebook around, You are armed in order to be armed at that time and place. We can never look into the mind of someone else, so always in law the mindset of the defendent has to be constructed, based on the outward characteristics of his actions.

Carrying a gun (in and of itself) in Rittenhouse's instance is not viewed as intent to cause harm or to act in conflict. Sounds kind of crazy in the situation he was involved in but that is the law. — I like sushi

He is not carrying a gun 'in and off itself'. If I am carrying a power drill to my neighbour's house who needs a painting to be hung or a tap to be fixed, I am carrying the power drill in order to drill a hole.

I of course do believe you if you tell me that the law of the state of Wisconsin on self defense does not take into account teh recklessness of bringing deadly weapons to a scene of conflict. Benkei pointed out that in such cases applying Dutch law would lead to a different outcome. The fact that fire arms are forbidden in the Netherlands does not matter that much. The case would also be prosecuted if I brought a meat cleaver to a fist fight, even if my intentions of separating the fighting parties would be in itself not blameworthy.

I am not condoning the law just stating what it is. That is why I suggested an outline for an alternative law regarding protests that would shift away from armed conflicts. — I like sushi

I know, we are also not in substantial disagreement. There are a few points of law which are interesting. Firstly the construction of intent. I think the construction of intent is not the problem here. Secondly I do think Dutch and US law differ in the case of justifications for self defense. We have the notion of 'culpa in causa', which occurs if one has had a hand in creating the situation in which you have to resort to self defense. Then there is the issue of proportionality, the level of violence matching the level of threat.

You argue that a self defense plea is so obviously warranted that prosecution is unjustified. You may be right, but what Benkei did was to point out that in many legal systems that is not a likely position. I would want to know what the arguments for the prosecution were actually.

Intent to look for conflict based purely on your opinion. That wouldn't stand in any court I know of. — I like sushi

Opinion based in fact. When you move to an area of conflict carrying an semi-automatic firearm you are not going to sing Kumbayla now are you? Besides, didn't he admit to wanting to protect the property there? I think that is what Benkei meant with 'looking for conflict'. Tthere may still be a justification, namele preventing a direct and imminent attack on the goods of others. His intent though, was to play a role in the conflict and he brought the means to do so. That the defendent put himself in the position in which he might need to shoot, is I think clear as day. That is all Benkei needs.

Such public cases are also a difficult thing to handle. There doesn't appear to be a good legal reason to have accused him with murder in the first place. This is the power of public opinion as there was clearly evidence that he acted in self-defense from the footage instantly available so without a clear cause to accuse someone of murder the chargers were brought forward prematurely - which neither protects the accused's rights nor helps the prosecution as they've had little time to reward anything. He may have been charged and arrested simply for his own personal safety too given the atmosphere at the time and what was happening. — I like sushi

It depends on the legal system. Perhaps under US law the case is clear cut, I do not know, yet I am also not confident to say it is. As Benkei pointed out, him bringing a semiautomatic rifle to a conflictuous situation might, in some jurisdictions, offset a self defense justification. I will not speculate on the case itself, however self defense laws differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In the US they might well differ from state to state. Under Dutch law such a situation will certainly be prosecuted. What the verdict would be I will not comment on because it depends on the exact facts of the case and I generally refrain from commentng on such issues directly.

The event was given political priority as it looked to suit different narratives that were and are highly politically charged at a highly politically charged time. These things are difficult. — I like sushi

Two people slain, one severely injured, that is a big deal legally independent of politics.

The legal merits of the case are different from the political ones. They are of course mixed, in practice, but can be treated independently, I think that is what Benkei was doing.

"Ey, sevda kusanip, yollara dusen, bilesin bu yollar daglar dolanir"
"He who embarks on the road wrapped in love, should know those roads wind along mountains"

Hmmm, Zizek says it all while he figets with his shirt... The rationalty of love is redeemed by its falling into unreason, because only the fall presents to us a glimpse of what is real. Love negates reason, but it is reasonable that it does so... Our avoidance of the fall makes us unreasonable, wanting to have our cake and eat it too...

Maybe I can help make the topic more philosophical.
Is love really a form of going crazy? Or, is love an altered state of consciousness?
If everyone were rational, would there be no love in society? — Yohan

Love I think is eminently rational. The mind wishes for a relationship to the world. If it would be otherwise, it would run up against the limits of itself, and solipsistically (or narcisisitacally) would olnly be confronted by itself vis a vis a meaningless world. It finds this relationship in another in which it recognises itself as a similar mind, looking for similar things. It bridges the world as 'other' and hence strange, and makes it 'an other alike oneself'.

A short edit. We do not all act rational in love, but that simply shows that our relatonshio to the world is not one of ratio, but of intimacy, desire. Love is rational in so far as the feeling is comprehensible as a structural feature of our world.

So, God can make himself ignorant of something and thereby it will cease to be justified. God's will determines what is and isn't justified. Thus, God can be ignorant 'and' omniscient, for by making himself ignorant he reduces the domain of knowledge. — Bartricks

He just knows all there is to know. The choices that people will make is something to know. therefore God knows them.

I do not follow you. Yes, God could create another God. God can do anything, so he can do that. — Bartricks

God is causa sui, meaning cause of himself. Read all of scholastic philosophy up to Spinoza. A God that is created is not a God, because he has a cause outside of himself. By necessity it follows that God might create another God, but that other God is identical to itself in every aspect.

Yes, and yes, God does exist in time. God creates time. And God is in time. I created a jersey. And I am in the jersey. God creates time. God is in time. — Bartricks

Yes but you created that Jersey in time. God did not create time in time because if he did he would not have created time, time would already be there. Therefore his creation is timeless.

Why are there sinful beings? Well, God didn't create them - being omnipotent does not essentially involve having created everything. And free will seems to require being uncreated. So as we have free will, it is reasonable to conclude that we are uncreated. — Bartricks

Well there goes God the creator of everything... God did create all things, or they must have been created from nothing which is impossible.

Why is there wrongdoing? Because God values people having free will and exercising it. But he doesn't allow anyone to visit harm on an innocent. Why would he? He can prevent that. So it is reasonable to suppose he does. And has. — Bartricks

Interesting: God in all his wisdom and benevolence, values something done by something infinitesmally minute in comparison. And god quite frequently seems to allow har inflicted upon and innocent... Of course it might be that these babies that get hurt in famine and war are in some sense guilty, but that reasoning is circular. It becomes a simple article of faith and not logic anymore. The whole point of the theodicy is to find a logical philosophically sound answer to the problem of evil.

God doesn't allow harm to befall innocents. Harm befalls us. We are not innocent. — Bartricks

Everything gets harmed, so everything by article of faith must be guilty. The whole notion of innocence and guilt becomes meaningless.

So nature has no bearing on our freedom? I believe Schopenhauer said something to the effect that we had no choice on the matter of what type/kind of personality we are. Benevolence or goodness is God's nature is it not? — TheMadFool

God is a different being than man. Man as created being is determined by something outside of himself. God as creating being is determined only by himself. Therefore he most of necessity be free, otherwise he would be determined by something outside of himself. Therefore he determines himself as benevolent, which is fitting because evil, in this scheme is the lack of goodness. God being perfectly fulfilled is therefore perfectly good.

But why think God would know how we'd exercise our free will? God can make himself ignorant of anything he wants to. And it seems positively disrespectful to pry into the private thoughts and desires of free agents. So I think it is perfectly reasonable to think that God doesn't know how free agents will exercise their free will. Not becasue he 'can't' know, but because he doesn't want to. — Bartricks

God is defined as an omniscient being. The moment God turns himself into an non-omniscient being he would no longer be God. The question is similar to the question whether God can create another God. Also you seem to think God exists in time similar to the way human's do and that he pries in the same way as humans pry in private affars. However God does not exist in time similar to humans as he would than be under the rule of time and hence limited. God though is an unlimited being.

We are left with an unlimited omnisicent being, qua the definition of God.

Now of course God can limit himself. He became men in the Christian vision, but he did not lose the qualities of God as God. That is why he is three in one. (trinity).

One of the main reasons why we doubt our free will is our nature - our preferences not something we chose.

God is seen as having a nature viz. benevolence, in fact God's omnibenevolent. No free will!

However, God's also omnipotent i.e. he can defy his nature. Free will!

The paradox: God has free will (omnipotent) & God doesn't have free will (omnibenevolent) — TheMadFool

Omnibenevolence does not stand in the way of free will. He can act otherwise, but he does not, he only acts in benevolent ways. This does bring the theodicy to the fore of course. Why are there sinful things in a creation of a benevolent being?

Well, in his created world how did things become pious and sinful? — Vanbrainstorm

I do not know. There are two possibilities. A. He created pious and sinful things. B. Things became pious and sinful through the choices they made. A. is problematic because why would an all good creator create sinful things? B. however, begs the question though. If they made choices that made them sinful God would know before hand and God knows its creation has the potentiality to be sinful. Therefore God created sinful things. However, how you deduce from that that God is programmed is beyond me.

Ahh well, anyone who has a soft spot for Collingwood gets the benefit of the doubt from me. And I admit not having read the previous discussion. That is a flaw, even though I really could not read as much as I would like to :). Happy travels all!

Nice post.

Going back to the different approaches that we talked about, they may each have their strengths and weaknesses, and for whatever reason, we may have a preference or natural aptitude for one and tend to favor it, but I think different combinations can offer the types of value that you mention.

Is it wineoclock yet? Almost. :razz: — praxis

Yes, we can of course and we all come to grapple with philosophical questions through different directions. Maybe where things go wrong is in the definition of philosophy. Now, if the OP would hold that one can be wise without reading philosophy, I would wholeheartedly agree. Just like one can become able bodied and fit without doing sports, but for instance by doing heavy physical work.

However philosophy is different from wisdom. It is not wsdom per se, but a certain way of becoming 'wise'. The discipline entails concerning oneself with philosophical problems in a philosophical way, using the tools handed to you by philosophy. Philosophy in this sense is a certain tool, or maybe toolbox. To be able to use the tool box one learns how to use them, by reading how it is done. I think it is strange for someone to say: "I need no stinking toolbox, I still am a carpenter, I just hit the nails with my bare hands". I just do not find it believable. I would find it believable, if someone just makes the claim that he or she is a handy person, despite never having used the toolbox.

It is actually way past wine o clock for me, it is past midnight, past one AM, so I am afraid it is time for bed. 'night.

Oh, well. On to more wine. — Manuel

Wine is always an option and a pleasuable one. Sex is too, and one so sorely underestimated on a philosophy forum. I myself am enjoying a water pipe right now, with apple tobacco, nothing illegal.

Cheers!

Now the lie seems different and tailored to the need not of outdistancing the truth, but of right away cutting it off at the knees, this the method and tool of right-wing politics especially. An appeal to the immediate reaction, usually of emotion in terms of fear or hatred. In itself nothing entirely new, but, as the argument here claims, qualitatively different from its forebears. — tim wood

It is a good question. I do not know whether communication has qualitatively changed. The worry about the abilities of authoritarian regimes to use appeals to emotion is among us for a long time already. In this article (not free unfortunately :( ) Karl Loewenstein writes about the use of mass media to enhance a political strategy that appeals to emotion as a basis for its appeal. It reads like it could be written yesterday, but it is written in the 1930's and he refers to the radio, news paper op eds and public rallies...

The question is very thorny because it implies we might have to give up some of our most cherished rights to protect them and that is of course paradoxical. t is debated in law faculties currently, but an answer is very difficult to give, because the whole idea of free speech is that we are free to raise objections to the communis opinio... I think what we should worry about is the establishment of monopolies regarding the formation of discourse. Prohibition would be a last resort. I feel the key is to educate people to accept open and free debate, and encourage them to view matters from different perspectives, however harsh it may be. currently that is not the sign of the times though, where both the left and the right use tactics of canellation and villification.

Therefore, I am determined to believe in free will until after breakfast. — unenlightened

Well said. Yes, that is the truely wicked part of the problem.

But I believe we're going to have to agree to disagree on this particular topic. — Lindsay

Ohhh agreeing to disagree holds so little except for an uneasy silence... I also think such a truce will never hold. Between us it will of course, but you will be drawn to the topic again and again anyway, and you will engage with these thoughts, whether you will it, or not. For such is the fate of someone interested in philosophy. Or you might be a believer at heart, someone who resigns, out of free will or otherwise, to faith. Thank you,for your kind words :)

Get me out of here! — Manuel

Philosophy is a bit like Hotel California, you can check out but you can never leave... ;)

No disagreement, though it’s unclear to me what value this may personally provide. I wonder if it’s possible to have studied these problems, have a solid foundation in logic and critical thinking, be able to express thoughts and ideas well, and perhaps be unsatisfied in some way. The shoemaker gets money for his footwear. What does the philosopher get? We know it ain’t much money.

Incidentally, I don’t meet that bare minimum and that’s why I try to ‘stay in my lane’ on this site and not interfere in discussions that are over my head. And besides fiction, I tend to read books on science rather than philosophy. For the most part, I like this site because I can practice writing, critical thinking, and am exposed to interesting ideas that I may not otherwise encounter. — praxis

Well, the question of value is also a perennial one. I can only say it provided value for me, because I feel I have a better grasp of the structure of the world than I had without studying philosophy. the ancient Greeks thought the goal of philosophy was ataraxia or 'peace of mind'. Whether this is attainable through philosophy is an open question, but I guess people are drawn to philosophy, because they are bothered by questions that keep nagging. I see philosophy more like a mental discipline, much like working out is, or sports is.

I also use this site to practice my writing, sometimes launch an idea and sometimes to joust a bit. I tend to joust when I see people making claims that pose some sort of challenge. When one challenges I feel that it is ok to meet it. In addition I also joust wit posters whom I know like it and from whom I can learn. aan argumentative joust may yield insights.

But the question you ask is a good one, the question of value. when one starts thinking about it, one starts doing philosophy and possibly gets sucked into the labyrinth. The questoon leads to further questions: what kind of value are we talking about, is there one kind, or many, is there a way to measure it, if we feel we can measure it, does that entail there is something of absolute value we measure it against, etc. Before you know it you are up to your neck in metaphysics :)

My take is that it’s more like claiming there are different approach’s to shoe making & repair, such as a more rational approach or a more intuitive approach, and if our way is satisfactory, asking what we may be missing by not taking the other approach. — praxis

I agree with that. What I dislike is the disdain by which people who use the intuitive approach discredit the rational approach. Of course one does not need to read Hegel to do philosophy (though it helps :p ) However, what is it thst one must do? I think the bare minimum would be to deal with problems philosophers deal with and do so in a way that can stand up to scrutiny by others. Just like a shoe maker must, as a bare minimum, make shoes and one must be able to at least walk in them. They do not have to walk well, but they should not be doll sized, or fixed to the ground etc.

Wisely, on the subject matter (what you want to learn about), not generally(generally being wise). — Varde

Yes, but what is spending time wisely on the subject matter you want to learn about? Books are just a short cut. You read the thoughts of others, because the subject matter is too difficult to invent the wheel yourself time and again. Some people have more talent than others, but it is rare, if not impossible to find someone who is immeiately capable at grasping philosophical problems. Make an analogy with chess, which is a much more simpe human endeavour than philosophy. All the greats of chess have studied the games of others. They are themselves brilliant at chess, but they still find it necessary to study.

I'm not suggesting that consc. is always a tool - it can be less placid. — Varde

You were giving an analogy, my question was not 'is consciousness always a tool', but if you say it is, then you imply there is a tool user no? My question was who is that then? Or is the above a concession that the analogy was just a bit flawed?

I'm not here to boast, I'm reinforcing my point that books aren't a requirement to be intellectual, and it's easy for me to reason using other methods. — Varde

Well, I doubt that, because within books you find all sorts of problems and solutions to them, which intellectuals tend to debate. Not knowing these shows you are not an intellectual. Just like someone who does not repair shoes is not a shoe maker. You might well be intelligent of course, or intellectually inclined, I am not saying you are not. I just find it interesting why people call themselves such and such while basically refusing to engage in the activity of such and such.

Of course, philosophical reasoning is by no means the only way to reason, not even a privileged way to reason as far as I am concerned. A carpenter has to use reason and all kinds of insight, especially spatial insight. I lack all the ability to reason in such a way. Perhaps that is it, people see 'philosophy' as a kind of badge of honor and feel they have to call themselves 'philosophers'.

You don't need to read in general to be anyone, you need to spend time wisely on subjects you want to learn about. — Varde

What would spending time 'wisely' be?

Nature is the learning resource, consciousness - the tool. — Varde

Who or what in this scheme would be using the tool? In this scheme you are also reducing nature to a resource and raise consciousness to the level of a kind of formative cause. This scheme is in fact very old in the history of philosophy, but it is questionable whether it is a helpful representation. Especially recently a much more active role is ascribed to 'nature'.

I have self-educated for many years. — Varde

No jibe intended, but this as such says nothing. The question is, did it grant you the competence to reason philosophically? I have no opinion either way, or on you, but often I see self educated people loudly boasting about their abilities and I often wonder why.

Nothing wrong with reading books though - I prefer art. — Varde

That is of course fine. We all have our preferences.

Maybe you could continue your reading in silence. — frank

Or maybe you could appreciate the remark in the spirit it was made, with some irony. I conceded the point already. But anyway, the spirit of my remark was not really to investigate what makes a philosopher a philosopher, but why the OP shows disdain for reading philosophy. It is a bit like saying, "I ain't repairing no goddam shoes, but I still consider myself a shoemaker".

Ironically, if you bothered to do the reading all of your questions should be answered. — praxis

You have a point. I read the OP and was curious. I will not read 10 pages of text though because I am busy reading pilosophy. :lol:

I’m interested in hearing other people’s thoughts on this. — T Clark

I wonder why you think you are a philosopher. Your OP is very defensive and just screams 'please take me seriously' even though you have admittedly nothing to show for it. Better question is actually. why should we consider you a philospher?

PS. I found an essay on metaphysics by R.G. Collingwood very good too. That is sound philosophy. Why are you saying you read no philosophy then? Are you sure your OP is not just trolling?

Premise 1: somethings are pious while others are sin.
Premise 2: God decides which is pious or not because he is all knowing.

Deduction: if God decides somethings as pious and somethings as sin, he, before hand, was endowed with knowledge. He was programmed to be this God that labels some actions as pious and others as sin. if on the rather hand he decides these things after studying human actions, the foundation by which he uses to analyze actions to label them as pious or sin, are programmed. In both cases God becomes a programmed machine. If he is programmed it begs the question who is the programmer, which we can create another god and continue to infinity with other Gods. Which makes the whole idea obsolete.

This in turn makes his existence questionable. — Vanbrainstorm

God was not beforehand endowed with knowledge or affterwards endowed with knowledge. He did not sit at the table and decided as a human person would. Rather he created the world by his will and in this world some things are pious and some sinful. Why would he be programmed. He is cause sui, cause ot itself. In your language the unprogrammed programmer. So yes, he has free will, he is freedom actually. Our freedom is caused by us being material. We are not creators but created.

Not if we win :blush: — StreetlightX

We are not on different sides. Just remember not to take part in any executions without regard for due process of law. They tend to take place uring revolutions an awful lot. ;)

As for the rest, one only has to look at just where the attempts to 'channel class warfare and encapsulate in discourse and consensus politics' have gotten us. Here. — StreetlightX

I am less pessimistic. Not all is well, by no means, but not all is terrible either. Never before did so many people enjoy a comfortable life. We have miracles at our disposal people 100 years ago could only dream about. No modern times is not without its problems but it never was. The endless fight for the gun wil just be that, an endless fight for the gun and in the process millions get shot and die. As did Walter Benjamin, by his own hand in a society deeply embroiled in 'the struggle for the gun'.

Yes yes @StreetlightX indeed, that very same social democracy. When did Benjamin write, the 1920s the 1930s? Ohh so full of romanticism the German nation was, on the left and the right. Class warfare needs to be mitigated. The alternative is to bank on some sort of final victory of the working classes, but that is as ridiculous an idea as the end of history is. A new elite will simply grab the reighns of power. Exactly because class warfare will always be waged it needs to be channeled, encapsulated in discourse and consesus policies and, most importantly, the circumstances of the least well off need to improve most. (apologies for the rawlsian echo, was not intentional ;) )

↪Tobias If Trump is good for one thing, it's that he makes clear who the enemy is. The political field becomes arrayed in a very neat way. The mushy liberal 'consensus' of the 90s and 00s - which just so happened to mark the definitive triumph of neoliberalism - gave way to show that the whole thing was rotten to begin with. Social democracy hasn't been forgotten, so much as its been shown to be a facade that stung together by tape as workers lost their rights, pay stagnated, inequality ratcheted up, state supports dismantled, debt became structural, and the Global South was left to rot by the Global North - all long before Trump came to the scene. Trump is nothing but a crest on this wave, but he does a good job defining its contour. — StreetlightX

I fundamentally agree with you, but disagree with your rendition of social democracy. That might be due to the mistranslation of political terms in US and Western European political idom. In US politics there is nothing like social democracy, although I think Sanders tried to introduce its corse tenets in US politics. Social democracy, essentially, is about realising socialist aims without revolution or a dictatorship of the proletariat, which brought it into head on collision with communist parties in Europ, especially in the German Weimar Republic. After the war it was a strong force in Western European politics, forming the Western welfare states. In the Netherlands at least it reached its zenith in the latter 1970s wwith a socially progressive and economically egalitarian government.

In the 1980s, under the spectre of recession, the backlash came. Market capitalism became dominant, under the influence of chicago school economics, shareholder caitalism as well as the world leaders of the time, Reagan and Thatcher. The traditional social democractic parties, the labour party in the Netherlands, but also in the UK and the SPD in Germany, embraced the 'liberal' ideas, more akin to US politics and embarked on a kind of social liberalism. That is what I meant with the 'forgetting'of social democratic values. The'facade' was not social democracy of the late 1960s and 1970s, but the turn towards some form of social lieralism, which indeed marginalized the working class. There we are very in agreeent.

In the debate above this option has also been forgotten. We are presented with a choice between liberalism and revolution, scylla and Charibdis. Academic freedom, irony an a kind of magnanimous tranquility do not seem safe with the current brand of revolutionaries. I think they are essentially conservative and essentialist, but that is another debate.

Hmmm, I think the rich harvest for Trump and other populists is begotten from the ashes of the progressive factons tearing each other to pieces... ;)

The ideals of social democracy have been forgotten. In the words of an old Dutch Prime Minister, the equal distribution of knowledge, income and power... Nowardays one side wants liberalism, social but also economic, a second side revolution and a third (which I did not see on the preceding pages) the recognition of diversity in language. None of these views cater to actual needs of people who have to make ends meet in an increasingly complex and alien world.

It's probably healthier to believe in some kind of free will. All I need to do is believe and whoila, like Baron von Munchausen hoisting himself up by his pony tail in the swamp, I'll levitate out of my depressing existence. Think positive thoughts and take flight with the metaphysical placebo. — Nils Loc

It might be healthier, but when one knows it is a matter of belief, the existential question lingers. In juging for instance it seems disingenious to say: "well I believe you acted ot of free will, because it is healther to believe in it, even though deep down I know you had no choice". We then punish based upon a reason one finds doubtful. Moreover, perhaps it is healther for ones own well being to believe in God, however that has not stopped the secularization of society.

However, I believe in both, because, they are polar opposites just like yin and yang is. One side is more abstract than the other. It’s subversive that Fate is all about giving up control and trusting that the universe has all the answers and everything is up to “Fate” in itself, which essentially means you have no control over your own life, because, it was pretty much already been written since the day you were conceived...or even perhaps sooner. While on the other hand we have “Free-Will”, which puts YOU in the driver’s seat; you are what makes your life what it is now and where it will be going in the future, and the how and the why is completely up to you...make your own life as it is based on your decisions/choices and actions. — Lindsay

I do not think one of them is more abstract. Fate is actually pretty concrete. It is usually referred to as 'eterminism', The idea that our actions are already deterimined. It rests on a number of premisses. One: we are material beings and just ike any other material beings, we are suceptible to forces impinging upon us. Just like a frog instinctively lashes out its tongue when a small moving blot triggers its retina, a man or woman takes a course of action detemined by all the impulses implay,, triggering your brain which is wired in a certain way based on past experiences. Just like everything else in nature our course of action is determined, we only put those actions into words, that is all. It is very concrete. I do agree with you there are layers though. In our immediate experience we cannot otherwise but conceive our actoons in terms of choice, and therefore blame, merit, resentment etc.

I feel that both is necessary for the world to keep spinning. You can’t have Free-Will without Fate having dictated saying that it is allowed to exist as an idea at all. And you can’t have Fate without Free-Will, because Fate itself needs information of what kinds of actions you take and decisions you make to get to know you better in order to better decide what parts of your life that Fate adopts as some things about yourself that will never change, and the things that CAN CHANGE is up to your ability of having Free-Will. — Lindsay

You personify fate, but fate does not have a plan. It did not dictae anything. For if that were true, than free will would be logically prior, because it would than have to have freely decided. If not, and if fate was also susceptible to fate, than the idea leads to an infinite regress and is uninformative. The problem is we have no idea what things we can change and what not. To a determinist, every 'choice' you make can be explained by a combination of your character traits and the myriad of impulses influencing your brain at every given time. None of which you have chosen.

So they are polar opposites, but they also thread into one another like two layers of corsets/spanx. Basically, they WORK TOGETHER without most of us even realizing that’s what is happening at the time. I wonder to myself at times, how common is it that people ponder that question highlighted above? And why have I never heard of people talking about them at the same time instead of just one or the other?
Has to be a mystery for now. — Lindsay

Ohh, when I was a student I used to accost my profrssors of law and philosophy and ask them about free will and what possibilities we have for blame, guilt and punishment. In law chocie is pivotal so I thought they would think about it. they did not seem very interested in the questiion. Now though, many people talk about it. I would urge you to look into compatibilism, for instance here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#:~:text=Compatibilism%20is%20the%20thesis%20that,between%20moral%20responsibility%20and%20determinism.

I think I have found an answer to the problem of free will, not a definitive answer of course, just an answer I am satisfied with. This answer is not along Yin Yang lines, because tey form a unity, but an answer that points to a disunity. we know we have no free will, yet, we cannot ignore the fundamental experience of having it. so we have free well and we have not free will. Well that is the gst in a nurshall. Explore yourself, and enjoy the ride.

regards,
Tobias

I’m not suggesting by this we run around and grab the pitchforks for a good ol’ fashioned witch-hunt, but surely we should give the common person some respect for choosing his/her destiny even if it doesn’t fit in with the value system of professors and (private) educational institutions. My reading of Kant’s ‘kingdom of ends,’ inspires me to say a valuable structure in power and politics can’t be found without the consent to some degree of all the people within it as moral equals. — kudos

Yes, I agree. Where do you see the academic class blocking the life path of what you call 'common people'? I agree that our current ' diploma democracy' as we say in Dutch is flawed. Our policy makers should represent the people and curently the balance between academically educated and non-aacademically educated is off. I do not think though the academic education is the problem per se, but the academically educated seem to be privoleged in other ways as well. I do not think we are that far off actually.

It's a cognitive bias: — baker

Yes, there might be a bias, however the question is how severe it is. Education would be impossible if the educator and the educatee would inhabit different worlds.

As a better-informed agent, you are unable to correctly anticipate the judgement of less-informed agents; in short, you cannot relate to them. Now, in a teacher-student setting, this can be irrelevant, because the only thing that matters are the teacher's expectations and standards. But outside of such a setting, it can be of vital importance. See, for example, the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns. Simply calling people stupid, irrational, and such doesn't help much. — baker

Sure there might be miss-matches. The funny thing is when policy makers see the ineffectiveness of the vaccination campaign they hire academics or commercial consultants to divise a way of communication that does reach the people.

Do you think this applies to all spheres of human effort, including questions of the meaning of life?

Is it up to academics to decide what the meaning of life is, in general and in particular? — baker

No, and there would not be an academic worth his'her salt who would state that he knows the meaning of life and that he should have the authority to tell others what it is.

In the Old World, having an advanced degree is mostly about status. For all practical intents and purposes, having an advanced degree (mostly regardless of the specialty) raises the person to the level of nobility, or at least aristocracy. If I would find myself in a situation where I would be expected to bow my head before someone with a Ph.D., I wouldn't be surprised. Even in informal settings these people expect to be treated with special reverence (others must greet them first, even if the person with the advanced degree is visibly younger; they get to sit down first, eat first, etc.). — baker

Well I come from the old world. I have obtained a Ph.D. Nowhere is there anyone bowing for me. Nor do I expect such a thing. I do not know which country you describe but it is not the Netherlands... Perhaps 50 years ago this might have been different, I do not know. May I ask you if there are any job openings in this country for plodding legal scholars?

Do the academically trained not believe something like "We are better humans than the average Joe"? I believe they do. Also, society at large seems to believe this about them. — baker

There might be snob-like academics, but I have encountered that sentiment more often in people who just made a fortune in business. And there are all kinds of peope just bshing academics and bluntly proclaiming that their knowledge is all bollocks. I do not think we feel better. I know it is sometimes tiring to discuss a complex subject of which you happen to know something with someone who does not, but still thinks he does. That does lead to me thinking "I am better", but does sometimes lead to a feeling of annoyance especially because some people think the subject is easy or 'common sense' whereas if it was I would not have spent years studying it. But no... better... that would be a very silly thing to feel. I cannot speak for all academics though.

Fachidiot. Do you know what this German term means? — baker

Yes. 'Of course', I might add, but you will probably accuse me of academic arrogance. ;)

Rigour which is relevant only to academics. — baker

No, it is relevant to each of us. Science and academia have made our lives a lot better. I in any case choose evidence based practices over the hunch or intuition of some kind of person with a peculiar opinion.

Should actual lay people, Tom, Jane, Mary, Henry, be convinced to get vaccinated by the arguments given by the virologists? Do they have such an obligation to the specialists? — baker

No, not at all. The state should be covinced that it is in the public interest to raise vaccination rates, because believe it or not people are actually dying and I belief, based on the opinions of experts, that vaccines stop people from dying. There are a number of ways to do that of co urse and I hope they consult lawyers among other people to discuss the pro's and cons.

-You may not, but many do. Metaphysics specifically suffer by bad non naturalistic speculative frameworks from philosophers and scientists who find a way to publish their ideas outside the difficult "audience" of science. — Tobias

It may be. I hardly read metaphysics papers anymore sadly and if I do they would be in the contental vein. Though I think you would disapprove of them, but that is just a hunch.

-Again its not my personal thought. Its a fact that many philosophers point out.IF you subscribe to Academia.edu you will receive all kind of "news letters" on new publications spanning from "the role of intuition"(while Psychologist Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel in Economics by exposing intuition's untrustworthy nature as a heuristic) to papers about the " improper implications of an improper undertanding of genesis 1-1 and arguments on Ockham's razor simplicity(when its all about necessity). — Tobias

I have an acaemia page... The paper on genesis may be interesting enough from the field of theology or philosophy of relgion, I cannot judge that. The one on intuition may be interesting. The concept has a history in philosophy which is different from the one in science. If I write on the concept of intuition in pre Kantian metaphysics though Kagneman will get me nowhere.. By the way, the field of social psychology os frowned upon by many academics I believe. I enjoy it much though.

This is what I argue. This is the reason why Philosophy only has a handful of major advances to display while Science as a philosophical category is enjoying a long lasting run away success in epistemology. — Tobias

The problem is disagreement over what an ' advancement' is. Our understanding of scientific paradigms is a philosophical advancement, our interest for discourses of power is too. The problem is you are just unreflectively putting forward your (or the scientific community's) criteria for advancement and start judging. It is like me using legal criteria to judge a football match, it leads to misunderstanding.

-All those are true...but again in order to prove that those affect our body of epistemology you will need to point out cases where pseudo science has been accepted as scientific knowledge for respectful period. — Tobias

The dutch team of scientific experts cited lack of proof in order to wait with making mouth masks mandatory while the whole world wore them. This is a small example but why would that not happen by and large? Epiemiology for instance is plagued by data dredging, finding corelations which are represented as causations. Economic analyses have often been proven wrong or inadequate due to failures of assumptions.

So of course we should judge a philosophy when it doesn't offer WISE claims about our world. When the claims are for "other worlds or dimensions" the we are dealing with religious claims, not philosophical ideas that can assist us in understanding this world. — Tobias

Ohh ear the screaming again. Well if wisdom is your criterion we are in a whilly different ball park. A claim may well be wise, though it has no truth value. First explain what a wise claim is.

-So IMHO you are part of the problem. There is not an open question about it. Its something that Bunge and Hoyningen and Richard Carrier and many others have being pointing out and it is something that can be verified by the results. ITs the reason why many scientists accuse Philosophy for not contributing to our advances...while they are doing philosophy to conclude to that position.
So Philosophy is not the problem here but how people tend to do philosophy! — Tobias

I am not part of the problem at all. You just want your and your schools take on philosophy to rule. Sadly for you it does not. A claim like that is a mere claim to power, with a hidden assumption that they know what good or bad philosophy is.

-That is an irrelevant aspect that has nothing to do with the main problem of Philosophy. You are arguing about a completely different topic. Nothing of what I say keeps us from doing philosophy of science. And again... any hermenutic endeavour should be interpreted by the same standards and principles. — Tobias

Ohh I thought we were arguing about the same topic. Luckily you always put us back on track telling us what we should be talking about. That is just so helpful! The problem is you want to push your own schools of thought, fine but I am doing philosophy, not some reductionist game to reduce philosophy to the language game of science.

I am not arguing philosophy cannot learn from the peer review processes of science, just that the difference is far more nuanced than you make it out to be.

We have Consequentialism the main philosophical principle behind Secular Morality and our ability to produce objective moral evaluations, but we still have "philosophers" arguing and publishing papers on Divine or Absolute Morality (vs. authoritarianism / absolutism). — Nickolasgaspar

We unfortunately do not have objective moral evaluations, as anyone versed in the field of law or ethics will tell you. You yourself are badying about very controversial and misguided claims here.

We have Evidentialism and Objectivism still giving a fight against mysticism, authoritarianism, dogmatism, a priori facts, faith. (I see disagreement falling in this category) — Nickolasgaspar

Ohh an objectivist... that explains a lot. You do not mean those texts that seem to fail in every philosophcal peer review process I have encountered.

We have real life Political( and economics) Ideas ignoring Human rights and well being. ( exploiting humans as a mean to an end... for backing up a specific social organization system and meeting economic markers). — Nickolasgaspar

Human rights... that is an interesting one. They run rather cunter to consequntialist ethics. But anyway, show me the philosophical or scientific basis for human rights.

We have Naturalism still fighting against the epistemically failed principles of Idealism and Supernaturalism....and of course the pseudo idea of "free will" justifying unscientific social practices. — Nickolasgaspar

Ohh dear and we should not want any unscientific social practice, no sir! Strawson an analytic philosopher argues against your position. the problem is you mix up the normative with the desriptive. I see that a lot in scientists. It can be cureed, read up on philosophy.

-Yes but philosophy's procedure is inadequate to keep bad philosophy away from its published material. — Nickolasgaspar

Well, I do not read bad philosophical articles. Why do you think academia is flooded by bad philosophy? It is also a tough proposition to test because there is less of an agreed upon method in philosophy than in the natural sciences.

-No I am not going to absolute claims. I only state that the scientific establishment makes a far better job in monitor its peer review procedures by using far more strict rules and standards...that's all. — Nickolasgaspar

The problem is that you use similar criteria to judge the two enterprises, I think that is not productive. Studying the natural world is a different enterprise from studying the social world, let alone question our deep seated assumptions.

-They have pointed what? — Nickolasgaspar

They have pointed out the intertwinement of politics and science, where politics is understood in a broad sense. The nfluence of epistemic communities, different schools of thought, the importance of aqcademic prestige and the influence of publication pressure on the rigour of the scientific process. We see that in action in the corona pandemic. The science is the same right, however every country chooses different paths and virologists from Sweden disagree with those from the Netherlands and both are held in high regard in the scientific community.

-We should always judge a procedure by its outcome and science has enjoyed a huge run away success on epistemology while Philosophy still deals with pseudo philosophical worldviews masquerading as valid principles behind many publications. — Nickolasgaspar

I do not know which journals you read... I do not see philosophy dealing with an outdated metaphysics. This result oriented view is actually exactly what might be criticized. You say "we should always judge a procedure by its outcomes" but whether we in fact should is a philosophical quetion not a scientific one. Of coourse science has been succesful, but people are now questioning the down side of this success. Maybe that is what is meant by the death of science. Science is criticise for insance for having only a result oriented view without care for its moral implications. Many environmentalists for instance hold this view. Scientific legitimacy also seems to be eroding. Now I am not saying I would concur, but if something like that is meant by the death of science it might be dying.

Philosophy SHOULD learn by the strict evaluation standards of science and show equal respect to the rules of logic. — Nickolasgaspar

Good god, the screaming is hurting my ears. Luckily you do not get to decide what philosophers should do no matter how hard you wag your fist and how many capital letters you use. Of course learning can never harm, but you seem to buy into the iddea that there is one sort of criterion according to which every endeavour should be judged. It is an open question whether there is such a criterion.

We should listen to Philosophers like Hoyningen and Bunge that point out the problems in the current Philosophical procedure. — Nickolasgaspar

Or we shpuld read people like Latour, Daston and Beck who take a sociological approach to science. That way science learns something about itself and that in the end is I think the goal of philosophy. It is a hermenutic endeavour and not as you seem to think a descriptive one.

-Science is NOT decaying, neither as a method or an establishment or as a final product ( knowledge/theoretical frameworks). Being an institution within a corrupted economical system will always have its drawbacks but its self-correcting mechanism and monitoring of its peer view process and publications will protect the body of our epistemology from being polluted, something Philosophy can not do. — Nickolasgaspar

I am not saying science is decaying, I am saying that, if we want to answer the question we have to come to terms with what we mean when we speak of science. Sure, academic scientific endeavour has a review procedure, so does philosophy.. You seem to hold on to some ideal of value free science, but it is not there. Philosophers and sociologists of science have pointed that out time and again. I suggest reading the work on what they call the 'science policy interface', sheila Jassanoff and Jeremy Ravetz come to mind.

Latour and Woolgar wrote a very interesting book on how 'facts' are produced in laboratories in 1979. Science too rests on arguments of auuthority, paradigms, prestige and citation indices. Now I am not claiming sicence is dying. That is the claim Caldwell brought forth, not her own though but those of some authors apparently. I do not subscribe to it, but to see science as some sort of exalted untainted objective human affair is hopelessly naive.