And you? — Ansiktsburk

I am not complaining that people should go to work instead of invoking their right to protest (subject to reasonable constraints of time and place). You made that remark, so you practice what you preach. I preach something different.

What I find truly tragic is that a nation which was one the smartest and most benevolent on Earth has been dumbed down to such a level of stupidity and hatred, where something like 40% of the people hate truth and wish their democracy away... — Olivier5

It never was the 'smartest and most benevolent on earth', or maybe it was but that would be truly coincidental. It is just a myth of American exceptionalism. the US is built on a form of genocide which in today's enlightened age would amount to crimes against humanity. In the 1930s' it had laws not much different from those of fascist European nations (Other Eruopean nationshad such laws as forced sterilization of minorities etc, as well). It was a leading superpower, it had a lot of money, but the smartest and most benevolent, come on. Maybe that price goes to... well.... Czechoslovakia for instance? though they never had the clout to play a meaningful role of the world stage.

As for it being 'dumbed down', yeah but so have other nations, including my own. I prefer the Rhineland model over the Anglo Saxon one, but I fear the European are not 'smarter' than Americans, even though they very much think they are.

BLM, BLM-supporters, Environment activists, Senate Invaders

Same shite kind of people. Persons that due to too much or too little money in their families growing up focuses energy on other stuff than their daytime 9-5 work. — Ansiktsburk

What 'ya doin' hangin' around PF, get to work!

You have a rather cavalier attitude to attacks on democracy. — Olivier5

Not at all. I feel democracy can and should defend itself and yes that might mean opening fire on rioters that threaten to overwhelm government buildings. However that does not mean I cannot also find the deaths that this leads to tragic. Such an attack is not black and white, it is black and black.

Had she been attacking him, perhaps. But she wasn’t. The shooter was under no threat. — NOS4A2

Well, if there is a gang of violent people descending on you, you may well have a different perception of the situation. Legally, that is a key question. Could this officer reasonably feel under direct imminent and unlawful attack? I do not know but it cannot be ruled out. She herself was no direct threat but the whole mob was. She was an unfortunate death.

There are far worse tragedies in this world. I see this one more as a ‘what did they except’ kind of tragedy, like when a drunken fool tries to walk on top of a train or to give a blow job to a bear... Darwin award material. — Olivier5

Nahh, many people do silly things. Indeed a drunk fool also does not deserve to die. You have a rather cavalier attitude to human life, but I think it is for the sake of argument.

I should perhaps clarify that I am using "troll" in the more modern sense of:

someone intentionally trying to disrupt or manipulate online conversations and communities. — Echarmion

It might well be, but I am also puzzled at the defensive reactions. I remember PF long ago and the battles with Baron Max and Darkcrow, they were far more vicious.

I consider it fairly likely that NOS is a profile of a professional troll. — Echarmion

A troll I do not know, but he might well be a pro, I do not know. either way... even if he wields Trump propaganda I am still interested in who NOS is and why he think the way he does. (Or offers trump's spin).

I am not aware if the protesters were armed. DC has very strict gun laws, and in the livestreams I saw, no one was brandishing weapons, save for perhaps some American flags. — NOS4A2

Everything could be considered being armed if the force wielded is strong enough. The agent running scared and the reporter behind him certainly feared the crowd. Moreover the police present was overwhelmed, what more evidence of an asymmetric ratio of 'fire power' do you need?

I do not think the protests under discussion were similar in intensity. The #removeTrump protests and the disruption of the Kavanaugh hearing were heavily funded by political action committees, but I don’t think they resorted to breaking windows, just making noise, the old heckler’s veto. They berated one Senator, but I do not think he was in any danger. — NOS4A2

Agreed and though that might be 'too much' protest it is not threatening existing institutions.

The trump protesters were not organized at all, but certainly more instance. CNN is comparing this 1812. But I cannot see it. As I watched it live, the protesters were mostly meandering about the building, putting MAGA hats on statues and taking pictures. Level-headed people were yelling not to destroy anything. No statues torn down, no spray paint, no weapons, just people yelling. Then 3 or 4 protesters tried to get past the barricade, breaking windows. The woman then tried to jump through the window, unarmed, and she was executed before she could make it through. I suggest watching the raw footage and come to your own conclusions. — NOS4A2

Well the point is not to physically destroy something. The aim is to conquer and they succeeded. I am sure you are aware of the picture below. Why is it such a strong picture, because it is the picture of conquest. Short lived maybe, but the message is stark, your force might not prevail, we will if we want. That is what makes it such a disgrace. The intent of conquest is not the problem, the success of it is. The message to everyone is, the police will not or cannot do much, we are the ones that wield control. That is why the slogan "you did not take back control, we gave it back" is meaningful. The maga hats on statues were similar signs. Everyone who has ever played a strategic war game, from 'stratego' to "Medieval" knows about capturing the flag. A state institution can never let that happen unwillingly.

As to the point that this was insurrection, a coup, not protest, there is no evidence of this. There never was. I’d love to see some evidence for this, because I much rather find myself misinformed than having to believe countless people are lying. Who knows? Perhaps some Q nutter thought this was his moment, but have not seen any evidence of this. — NOS4A2

Well, as Hume famously pointed out the fact that you see a billiard ball move after it has been struck by another billiard ball is no logical evidence of one billiard ball moving the other. Here you see a president telling his followers to march to the capitol because nothing has ever been achieved by weakness and the crowd cheering "stop the steal" while they were interfering in the exact meeting in which Biden would be certified. Of course maybe they just wanted to buy tickets to the next Yankees game but it is not likely. They wanted four more years of Trump. They were there to insist on it happening. I do not know how much more evidence you want or how much would convince you. People are not lying. They might see or interpret things differently from you, but of course they are not lying. That is the exact oddness of your position and that of those so angry at you. You take issue with that, this black and white distinction. However, you buy into it too, they must be lying when they see things differently.

They don’t want anyone to hear these arguments, let alone discuss them. — NOS4A2

Who is 'they'? I think those arguments are heard, actually quite loudly. These arguments got this horde on the steps of the Capitol in the first place no? If no one wanted those arguments to be heard they would not have been. I think they are actually heard way too loud.

And thanks for hearing me out despite the ad hom. — NOS4A2

They might have gotten into this game too many times. There might be a reason for it, I know most to be sensible people. But well, I do not mind tough debate, including the odd ad hominem sometimes.

It’s called law and order: if your Dutch guy tried to storm the royal palace instead of tagging it, he might get shot at too. — Olivier5

Well if a Dutch guy would storm the royal palace all by himself he would not be shot. He would be looked at with incredulity. He might well be shot if he would storm the royal palace together with a whole violent gang. That would be tragic, because someone caught up in a feverous frenzy at the wrong time and place does not deserve to die, even if the shooting might be justified.

(I seem not to be able to copy an image or paste it... too bad, but it is the image of the many sitting at Pelosi's desk, I think you saw it 1000 times.)

I once made a student almost confess a crime during a tutorial. I know how it works... (It scared me though but that aside). I only wonder why Nos is thinking what he thinks. The danger is that people do not see each other as reasoning beings anymore and do not recognize each other as such. I firmly believe we all share one rationality and can place oneself in the shoes of another. If not all communality breaks down and there is nothing left but friends and enemies.

That doesn’t seem much worse than people literally calling for the removal of the president while occupying the senate building. — NOS4A2

How did they occupy the senate building, using potentially lethal force or armed in a way that might enable them to do so or not?

You are familiar with the term "gaslighting" right? Well, I suspect some gaslighting here.. — schopenhauer1

Gaslighting as in making the other believe they are crazy? How do you mean this exactly? he crowd was gaslighted into thinking they are being oppressed by an unseen elite and the media, or gaslighting as in the media are making us believe we see something that is actually not there, i.e., a violent mob invading the Capitol?

s — NOS4A2

Huh? They intended to stop the proceedings which would have proclaimed Biden the president elect... or was it just coincidental and does it happen every odd Monday morning?

It was certainly a person using violence for political gain, aka a terrorist or if you prefer, an old style fascist. And of course it’s logical from their screwed-up POV. Mussolini was logical too, and his reactions perfectly understandable from a fascist perspective. — Olivier5

I do not presume to talk for Benkei, but we do come from the same legal tradition and are surprisingly often in agreement about such matters so I will give it a shot. Not everyone who uses violence for political gain does it to the same measure and degree and therefore not everyone deserves the same punishment. If you are a street artist and you spray 'fuck the king' on a Dutch building you are committing the act of violence against goods, with a political motive. However it is hardly the same as planting a bomb in a crowded place in order to get the Dutch to withdraw from Afghanistan or wherever they might be. It has to do with the threat and shock to the legal order again. If you get swept away in a crowd with people who you agree with and in a frenzy of righteous fervor do something you really should not be doing, do you deserve to die? My feeling is no. Her death therefore is tragic. Could it be avoided and by who, that is the question of culpability for her death. The shooter might have acted in legitimate self defense or defense of others, but her death is tragic.

The only difference is how these people are being portrayed in the gutter press: one group as terrorists, a violent mob, and the rest as concerned protesters and activists. I do not remember congress or the senate saying it was an attack on democracy when protesters occupied, disrupted and sometimes accosted its members. — NOS4A2

There is a difference between fighting, looting and rioting because of perceived social injustice (looting and rioting being criminal of course, do not get me wrong) and storming a government building with the aim of seizing power for your own preferred strong man. The first is civil disorder, the other an attempt at toppling the democratic state. The difference is that the legal order is shocked in the first instance, but not itself in danger, whereas in the second instance it is itself under threat.

In the same vein there is a difference between political protest and rioting at the Kavanaugh hearing, where the seats of power have not been breached and the storming of the capitol where they have been. The threat to the legal order is much larger where such actions succeed than where they do not and the shock to the legal order is consequently much more severe.

I know US criminal law is not used to thinking in terms of 'the legal order', it is a rather German / Dutch conception, but there must be something similar. The same rationale applies when terrorist intent is punished harsher than ordinary street crime, which holds under US criminal law. It is not 'the gutter press' just doing something, in reporting differently about these two instances. The difference is similar to the way attempted murder is reported and actual murder is. The second presenting the more severe shock to the legal order and therefore warranting much more coverage and indeed condemnation..

Agreen Benkei ;) Criminal law is such a beauty of fine reasoning.

Obviously the people. These people shook up the system. I don’t have to like them to see that. — Brett

But what is 'the people' in this case. I always get itchy when 'the people' are mentioned, because it is usually an appropriation by a small group who claims to represent them, see e.g. the People's Republic of China. These people were fighting not to overthrow the powers that be, but to have four more years of it. The people here rallied behind a multi millionaire from a political party that wishes to cut budget on welfare, health care etc. The believe the deck is stacked against them and that Trump is sent to liberate them, but what does that tell you about where they stand?
They feel that a man who incites violence, racism, is under investigation for numerous crimes and shady deals and uses bully like tactics to get his way is in fact their hero. Of course tis this different from '68 or Hong Kong or BLM. We have a group of people fighting for an authoritarianism they think they will profit from. I am not saying their grievances aren't real and that they have been treated fairly but what they are fighting for is not a fairer society it is a more unfair one in which they at least receive a form of cultural and social superiority.

Also, not too long ago there were riots immediately outside of the Whitehouse, in May I think. It turned quite violent and destructive, with the president sent to his bunker. — NOS4A2

Yes and that is bad. Indeed Trump's presidency began with riots and the country is deeply polarized. An invasion though of these building is something different than a riot or a threatening situation. I wonder actually why you think the White House was not taken by protesters / rioteers. That is a serious question by the way, I am interested in your take on it.

We’ll, something like 80 people were arrested. But I’m not comparing the two. — NOS4A2

Yeah, also in Pelosi's office? I was blissfully unaware your seats of government were stormed on a regular basis.

Or was it rioting? Something that is not to be condoned of course and a cause for arrest, but it is different from storming a government building. There is a reason why such places are often heavily guarded. The same reason why the US govt objects when in another country their buildings are stormed and rightly so. They also discriminate between riots and the storming of government building, the harassments of journalists etc.

Um. That they're similar to leftists? That wasn't a salty jab. It's widely understood that QAnon now spans from right to left. — frank

It does actually. The left right dichotomy is also dated. I see a lot of revolutionary discourse which has historically been characterized as 'left' and QAnon supporters and Trumpists. I think Trumpism can best be described as populist. Apparently a large part of the population is susceptible to conspiracy theories, which actually resonate very well with the theories in vogue in 19th century Europe.

Probably the Kavanaugh hearing. I believe the new Vice President even spoke there. — NOS4A2

Ohh, was a woman shot, bombs found in the halls, thugs breaking windows? Or was it a war of words in which eventually the outcome of democratic procedure was accepted?

If you can't, fuck off. — frank

The eloquence of these people never ceases to amaze me.

Just not interested in in discussing it in snappy barbs with a European. — frank

Ohhh dear identity politics. I thought that was a thing of the left...

Are you an American? — frank

Wy do you ask? Are you Finnish?

I wonder also how big the crowd is. When you see scenes from revolutionary Caïro for instance or after the Turkish coup in 2016 you see crowd on the streets, crowds of civilians everywhere. Not even the Turkish military stood a chance. Here however... they say the night will be problematic, I doubt it. Maybe because of counter protests. The Trumpists will go home or to their hotels peacefully. Well, peacefully. beating up people left and right but far from a revolution. I fear the truth is that the police has no interest in being forceful. Therefore, there is no crack down, no violence and dispersal. How many were there really? How many protesters?

That is the difference with other revolutions. It is not a revolution against a government that rules at gun point. It is a revolution of those who own guns against those that write laws.

They have a lot in common with leftists. — frank

When did leftists storm the Capitol?

Yeah, I made a small edit to the post you quoted. But yeah, in the main you're right. I guess I just see alot of wasted potential there, as it were. These people should be allies. Their fight should be the same fight any on the left. — StreetlightX

I agree with you there too. They should be allies and the left actually led them down. The left did not care about working class problems. Many on the left are very decent university educated people, but have no idea of the real hardship that current society is causing. In the 1990's at least in the Netherlands the biggest leftist parties actually left economic issues behind and focused on post materialist values. If that is true elsewhere than the working classes had nowhere to go. However, though many things are the same as the days of old, there are differences too. The spirit of the entrepreneur, instead of 'Der Arbeiter" has taken center stage as the political hero. Money, not work are the products that people are proud of. That means that an affluent populist will be the popular icon around which revolutionary forces coalesce.

My immediate feelings are both of pity and admiration; pity because these poor fools are being used by powers who would not give a flying hoot if they died right there and then; admiration because they have the courage of their convictions so rarely seen. These people are real people with real greviances, and they've been manipulated into being the wretches they've become. — StreetlightX

I agree with half you say here. Yes no one they are supporting cares for them. Yes they are real people with real grievances. However, you believe them to be 'wretches'. I am not sure. They are afraid of something being taken away from them. They are a political force but not the force of the have nots. They are a force of supremacists. They are not fighting for something, but against something, against change. This is actually counter revolutionary, it is a revolution of the right. That is why you do not see police, there is no one to restore order. That is very worrying.

The point has been made. What would US govt' spokespeople say, when the US embassy in Iraq, Iran, or some other place was stormed without much police interference? they would say that the current government did not want to protect the building. Here too. the point has already been made that if you have enough guns you rule. the protests did not come out of nothing no? Everyone saw them coming and everyone knew Trump already put himself at the helm of an organisation reminiscent of those in the Weimar republic. So how could US law enforcement not be able to hold the line? It is a very ominous sign.

The OP asks whether one can be overly rational in chess, just as one can be overly rational in many aspects in life, according to the op. the answer in chess is, no, one cannot be overly rational, due to the characteristic features of chess. It is always, I repeat always handy to know the best move in the position. One might resort to playing an objectively less strong move though, because one knows it will put your opponent of guard. Than that is still a rational consideration to opt for second best. However that does not imply one can calculate too much or one would be actually a better player when not calculating and just trusting instinct.

In a social setting that might be different. The one not calculating a lot and acting spontaneous might actually have an advantage in building bridges to other people. Calculation in a social setting might be seen as cold while in chess with its win or lose parameters it is always virtuous. So sure, chess and life can be usefully compared but there are fundamental differences, this being one of them.

For another thing, chess pieces are named after things that we encounter in life: King, Queen, Bishops, Rooks, Knights and pawns are treated as foot soldiers. The nomenclature suggests some parallel between life and chess - it's a simulation of an actual battle on a board. So, chess imitates life and not the other way round. If life imitates chess, there should be a similarity between the two that has origins in chess and we don't see that (to be fair, I don't). — TheMadFool

Chess imitates a battle, not life. Life does not imitate chess, it does not imitate anything...Battles of course are a part of life, so there are situations in which chess comparisons are helpful. Bridge of course also does not imitate life, but it imitates some kind of negotiation game or decision making under consitions of uncertainty. Therefore there are some situations in life which can be compared to bridge. Other than that I do not see much point in such analogies.

For me as a chess player that is an interesting question. Actually, I agree with Hanover. The Dutch grandmaster Hein Donner has compared chess to other games. According to him chess adheres to the 'ontological conception of truth'. (A position he considered 'German' actually.) There is an objectively best move in every position. We just cannot find it and even a computer cannot yet, even though it gets much closer to perfection than humans. In chess all parties have in principle full information. The world of chess is totally knowable, there is no hidden element, at least not on the board.

There is of course a human element in chess and it is possible to play on psychological anxieties of the opposition. I believe it was Tartkower who said that the best move in chess is the one that causes most problems for your opponent. Mikhail Tal is notorious for playing combinative attacking chess that is upon close analysis often incorrect, but befuddled his opponents. Still also Tal will have to accept that with correct play on both sides one move is better than another.

He compared chess to bridge. He considered bridge to be an example pf a game adhering to the 'English' (Humean) conception that truth is a matter of consensus between people. In bridge, together making sense of the situation in which both partners are in, is key to victory. Most of the 'board' is actually hidden and the point is to assess the probabilties given and communicating them correctly to your partner.

Whether everything he says is correct is debatable, but I think his main insight holds: life is not like chess, but bridge comes a lot closer...

This problem is well described in Aristotle's "Physics", where he discusses the principles required to account for the nature of change. The underlying identity, by which we say that a thing persists as the same thing (retains its identity) despite having a changing form, is provided for by the concept of matter. This supposed, assumed, or posited "matter" accounts for the notion that "there must be a being that becomes". — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes and from here on the problem between the rationalists and the empiricists emerged, resulting in stalemate because neither by logic nor by the senses do we have access to this underlying 'identity'. Kant's brilliancy was to turn this on its head. Identity is not there waiting to be discovered by the perceiver, but a quality added in perception. Identity therefore is not passive, but active, identification.

The point though, now, is that "being", as a concept, implies, in all of its senses of use, an identity. The difficulty in negating "pure passivity", is to do that without negating identity. I do not see how we could remove all passivity from the concept "being", or existence in general, without denying ourselves the capacity for identity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes being implies an identity but it does not imply an identity that is present and unchanging. In fact I would say that being itself is not identifiable at all. It is a mere mental operation. I never saw being, I only ever encountered a being, qua an existing thing. For me actually that explains the difference between being and existing. Being is being and therefore no different from nothing. When we say of something that it is, we say nothing yet. If I tell you that the girlfriend of my dreams is beautiful, there is indeed an identity, namely between my dream girlfriend and the aspect of beauty, however, she does not exist, never is that identity to be encountered in an existing something. Being is therefore nothing...yet. An identity yes, but a totally abstract and general one, important in our conceptual apparatus, but nowhere else. (Aside, that is why in language, such as in Turkish, the verb being is not encountered).

best of luck in the new year :)
Tobias

You can see of course but you can't be the light waves. Thoughts, in the scenario I described, are thought waves and you can't be thought waves. — TheMadFool

Yes but you imply that for Descartes we are somehow thoughts. I have no idea how that would work, radio wave theory or not, and I do not think Descartes would have any idea as well. His phrase is not "I am thoughts therefore I am", but "I think therefore I am" You first commit Desscartes to a position he needs not hold and subsequently refute his 'position'.

Therein lies the rub. If thought waves are real, you can't be thinking — TheMadFool

And if light waves are real you cannot be seeing, so the things I see are not mine and somehow not seen by me. :chin: You are deeply confused.

I really don't believe that thinking can be identified with being in this way. This is because "being", though the "ing" signifies an activity, is really a passive, unchanging sort of thing, a temporal continuity of the same identified thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well I take a rather dialectical view that being is indeed becoming, but not identical with it. For there to be any becoming there must be a being that becomes. I would disagree that it is a passive unchanging sort of thing. and besides, notice how your description 'unchanging' then also denotes an activity, that is if every 'ing' denotes that. I don't see much of a problem actually. Being is a concept, a notion we use to make sense of the world. Pure passivity is actually negated by it, because if 'something' is purely passive, how would we notice it as a certain something, it must have all kinds of categorical qualities for us to be able to make sense of it at all.

[Again, sorry for repeating myself but Descartes' argument is that he is the thinker in the sense actively generating thoughts. Now this is necessary for Descartes' cogito ergo sum argument because if he's a passive recipient of thought waves then it's not him that's thinking. Just give it some "thought" - If the thoughts that I'm thinking aren't mine, i.e. I don't generate them on my own, then, how can I claim to be a thinker and if I'm not a thinker then how can I identify my self as a thinker? How can I say I am that which I'm not! — The Mad Fool

You repeat yourself and you keep repeating the same mistake. Why would being a passive recipient undermine Descartes argument that he is thinking? Whether thinking is active as in generating a certain something or passive as in receiving a certain something is of no importance. Just as for me to be 'seeing' might be to actively construe an object in my eye or receiving light waves. For thinking it is only necessary for there to be thoughts in my head but whether they are generated by myself or by some evil genie does not matter. I keep thinking. That is actually all of Descartes' point.

That said the thoughts are of course mine, because of self identification of thought. Also that is the point of the cogito. I attach it to everything I think and utter. What you are doing is actually handily disproven by Kant, we cannot know the thing in itself, only what we make of it. So the question whether thoughts are really really radio waves is pointless. It may be a handy metaphor for something at best. That something seems to be a critique of sorts of a purely individual consciousness. That is fine but we can do that without odd metaphysics.

The point is if there are thought waves of the kind I described in the OP, no one, including Descartes, is thinking. If this is a difficult for you to accept, consider vision. When we see objects around us, do we conclude that we're the light waves that enter our eyes? No, right? Similarly, if our brains are simply receiving (like our eyes receive light wave) thought waves, we can't assert that we're the thought waves and if that's the case, we can't claim to be thinking beings just as our eyes can't claim to be the light waves — The Mad Fool

The example actually proves the point you like to disprove. By your lights, somehow when we discovered that vision and seeing consists of light waves falling on our retina and being transmitted to the brain, we stopped 'seeing'. Descartes does not contest that he 'is' thinking, in the sense that 'thinking' and 'Decartes' are absolutely identical, which seems to be what you presuppose he says. He does not contend: "I am thoughtwaves", het just states that he is thinking in much the same vein as I can say that I am seeing. Whatever it is that I am de facto doing when I am thinking, is irrelevant to Descartes point. I am a being that thinks, he contends and I cannot escape holding true the idea that I am thinking. That is different according to him with 'seeing' and therefore that cannot be the basis of the self.

The issue then is how the thinking self-identifies. The self-identifying always requires another premise for the purpose of comparison. if the thinking thinks that it is necessary that there is something like a being which is thinking, then I think therefore I am, is appropriate the conclusion. But if thinking means something else to the thinking, then the conclusion would be otherwise. So the true question is what does it really mean to be thinking. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with you, but I think that question lies at the heart of metaphysics. At least the point of Descartes for me is the identification of thinking and being and therefore pointing metaphysics in a certain direction, namely the relationship of being and thinking. This connection came under heavy fire from Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein etc. but I think the point itself is momentous in philosophy.

Streetlight is correct.

"Descartes identifies himself as the entity doing the thinking and what's germane to my theory is that Descartes considers himself as the originator of thoughts i.e. Descartes believes that he, Descartes, is the source of the thoughts that pass through his mind."

Descartes merely identifies himself as 'thinking being', in ancient language, the being which' essence consists of thinking. However, he needs not accept that thinking consists of 'originating thoughts'. He merely accepts that there is 'something doing thinking' and that that certain something self identifies. This is a very elaborate way of saying the same thing Streetlight says actually. Your 'radio-wave thinking' theory is therefore not incompatible with Descartes.

Consider now the possibility that thoughts too exist like radio waves - disturbances in the electromagnetic field - permeating all space and our brains are simply receivers that pick up these thought waves, these thought waves being broadcasted by various "stations" that may be either natural or artificial (think ET).

However Descartes' theory is metaphysically (in this case at least) more lean than yours. He does not have to accept any metaphysical nature of 'the thought as a certaon something'. He 'merely' has to accept that thinking exists and that it is located in a certain something, something which you also seem to accept.

The works of Aquinas are immense and great. I do think Metaphysician uncovered is right, it makes no sense to just go and read Aquinas, I would say familiarise yourself with Aristotle a bit. Philosophy is a huge field so I would consider first what kind of questons you are interested in and then delve into a certain tradition. There is way too much out there to just hop on and go I think. Say you are interested in Heidegger and want to know where he came from, then it makes sense to read John Duns Scotus, indeed a medieval philosopher. If your are interested in Schopenhauer, maybe a sort of neo-platonism like Plotinus might be interesting. I myself thought of similarities between Hegel and Scotus Eriugena. When you are into spinoza you might also find Maimonides interesting... There are libraries full of interesting things, but I would advice you to read up more on a certain philosophical tradtion, so you can better place the works of the original thinkers. There are books on eno platonism and on the heritage of Aquinas etc. Look into those and then decide what you want to read.

Fathoming how traffic lights work should be a first task amongst philosophers.

Agreed Banno :). In any case for legal and political philosophy they are indispensible.

The physical description of their construction and implementation tells us nothing about what they actually are for. Nor will a description of the intent of one individual explain why they are there. Even a brief explanation must cover the full range from basic physics to ethical and social theory.

They are a metaphoric realisation of the power of law, or as we lawyers say it, ' the rule of law' .

Sure. But if the 'way things go' is ultimately that the creator can create whatever he wants, then the creator isn't constrained by any external law, any law would come from himself. In that instance it is false to say that the laws "just are", they are created.

Why would we need a creator at all? How would a creator know what he wants to create if there is nothing there towards which he (just assuming) can direct his will? When I want something it is because I know of that certain something and I know of that certain something because I experienced it or because someone told me about it or because of some physical urge or drive. Now a creator being rather immaterial does not have these physical urges. Moreover there is no one that could have told him about the thing he wants. Thirdly he has no experienced the thing he wants because it is not there. How does he know what to create? Gee I know the answer... hopping excitedly from one foot to the next... because he is omniscient! Ahhh ok. So the omniscient creator creates the world (in a broad sense, everything there is) cool. But now, that creator, how did it come into being? He cannot be created because that which is created is lower than that which creates and that would impinge on the almightiness of the creator. The only credible answer is that the creator just is. The latin name for that would be causa sui.

It isn't wild speculative metaphysics to point out that saying natural laws "just are", that there is no reason for them, is an assumption and not a logical necessity. It is the assumption that there is a fundamental meaninglessness. And I'm not the one who believes the universe is pointless, you have to see the other guy for that.

And now for the main point: no what I propose is not wild speculative metaphysics. I arrive at the same point as you do, " just there", but without having to construct a being that is beyond willing but somehow wants, all powerful, but somehow feels the need to create something other than himself, all knowing but somehow beyond the laws of physics which he nonetheless put there himself. Ockam would have it that an explanation not involving all kinds of stuff is better than an explanation that does. So, cut it away! I think the principle of sufficient reason would come to the same conclusion, but my jargon has become a bit rusty.

The point of me saying 'it is pointless to do so' is not to say the universe is pointless, it is pointless to put a creator in it, it does not solve anything. Moreover I do not assume a fundamental meaninglessness, you do because you think meaning comes from a creator and without it meaninglesness is left. Again though that is your assumption not mine....

Best
Tobias

You're arbitrarily assuming natural laws weren't created. To say that natural laws "just are" is to assume that they are there for no reason at all, that the universe is purposeless. See my last post above on that.

No, of necessity, in any case according to your own framework. Let's say they are created. Creation presupposes a process from something to something else. Now for creation to make any sense that process should be predicatable in some way, otehrwise one never knows what one is creating and anything can come from anything. Predictability presupposes that there is some ' way hings go' . It is not me who presupposes the eternal assistance of natural laws, it is you.

The same applies for 'reasons'. thiings have a reason when they are there to accomplish a certain something. Now one can only accomplish a certain something if it can be predicted what will cause that something to come into being. Therefore also ' reason' is only applicable against the backdrop of some natural laws.

So yes, laws are there and the question of reason is beyond us. If you want to fill it in with wild speculative metaphysics , more power to you, but why would you, if it is pointless to do so?