Somehow I think my last words will be something like: ”That’s not exactly what I had in mind...” Or: ”Well that was interesting...” — XTG

Mine would probably be "OH well, WTF."

They managed to convince them in Australia in 1996-7. In fact they convinced them to take the guns not to the roadside but all the way to the local police station or other designated local collection facility and hand them in. — andrewk

Did you check to see how many there were? There was a big difference between what they had in Australia and what they have in the US. Remember size counts, especially with a problem like this.

As noted above, all the problems you mention have been solved in other countries. Sure the solutions cost money but spending money to provide security is a fundamental role of government, not an optional extra. IIRC for Hobbes, it was the only role of government. Given what the US spends on defence and on spying on its own citizens, that principle seems to be perfectly well-accepted there. — andrewk

OK, so I ask again. If it is so easy, why has it not been done already? Because of all of the problems involved in doing it maybe.

The only way to solve the problems of a country is through education. I have said from the beginning that if you don't want people to have guns, then you need to educate them to not want guns.

Oh by the way, you really do need to start reading your references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_affairs_(philosophy). Nice one son. :up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_affairs_(philosophy).

Given as a source in an exiting thread. I think I need help in understanding what it says. :rofl:

A fact is, traditionally, the worldly correlate of a true proposition, a state of affairs whose obtaining makes that proposition true. Thus a fact is an actual state of affairs. — numberjohnny5

"Thus a fact is an actual state of affairs."
The key word here is Actual.
Presently existing in fact and not merely potential or possible
Taking place in reality; not pretended or imitated
Being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something
Existing in act or fact

Not one of those definitions allows one to suppose that something is happening. They would all need confirmation that an event is happening.

Facts possess internal structure, being complexes of objects and properties or relations. Thus the fact that Brutus stabbed Caesar contains the objects Brutus and Caesar standing to one another (in that order) in the relation of stabbing. It is the actual obtaining of this state of affairs that makes it true that Brutus stabbed Caesar. — numberjohnny5

So how does one obtain the state without the information necessary.

It's not clear to me what you take "information" to be based on your descriptions there. It seems like you've given two definitions of information: "the product of the event" and "the description of the event". Can you clarify what you mean? In what sense "product," and in what sense "description"? — numberjohnny5

I use the standard definition of information
Knowledge acquired through study, experience or instruction
A collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn

So both of the ways I use it seem to be perfectly in order.

Joe lifts his hand and slaps Fred, a series of events that I have experienced. The event itself was created by the people involved and and I watching received the information.
Because I witnessed the event I have the information about it and a good description(the facts) of it for anyone that wants to hear the details. I can also concluded from seeing Joe's actions that it must have hurt Fred.

But not having mental phenomena about some X doesn't mean that X isn't real. Things we don't know have no bearing on whether those things exist. — numberjohnny5

But not having mental phenomena about something simply means that we do not know anything about them therefore it cannot be claimed that facts exist about them.

A fact is, traditionally, the worldly correlate of a true proposition, a state of affairs whose obtaining makes that proposition true. — numberjohnny5

Where would you get the true proposition about anything that is unknown?
Where would you obtain a state of affairs that would make the proposition true?

If no one knows about some phenomena it doesn't mean that phenomena isn't happening (unless you're some kind of idealist). — numberjohnny5

I have already stated that there are many unknown things happening in the universe.

Facts include knowable and unknowable phenomena. That's because mental phenomena has no bearing on facts obtaining for me (unless the only facts existing were mental facts/events). — numberjohnny5

You are very confused. Facts are information therefore they are subjective according to your own words. In your head, mental.

Why would a gun amnesty cut funds in education? — Akanthinos

Where did I say that it would cut funds to education?

In case you have not noticed there are a bunch of teachers striking because of low pay, there is a deficit in nearly all states of qualified teacher, and they are having problems with security in the schools. would it not make more sense to bolster education? Would it not make sense to start proper training facilities for gun use and teach people the dangers of firearms?

How much money do you think the government has already spent across the country in legal costs to try and implement gun laws? I will try to find the article again, but it said basically that millions have been spent in court cases that have come about because of the government trying to put restrictions on guns.

And I seriously doubt that a general amnesty would work, not many would willing give up their guns.

I mean, it's not going to be free, but it certainly won't cost in the billions — Akanthinos

Some of the estimates go over 300,000,000, A realistic amount to pick up each gun, including people going house to house with court orders to require the people to hand over their weapons, the cost of each court order, the cost of finding out who has guns so that the court orders can be issued. Take into account how many man hours it will take and multiple that by the minimum wage, let's say $10, we wont count the multitude of high priced lawyers that will be fighting it ever step of the way. I think that you are well into the billions, and that is if you don't run into any serious problems.
And then there is the transportation cost to take into account. And the storage of all those weapons with plenty of security because obviously you don't want anyone stealing the guns again after you spent all of that money getting them. And then there is the destruction of them. Wow, that does not sound cheap.

How much trash is generated in a week in the U.S? If it cost 1 dollars to pick up every one of those trash bags... See where I'm going with this? — Akanthinos

No, I don't see where you are going. There is absolutely no way to compare the two procedures. At least when I lived stateside the people happily took their trash to the edge of the road and the guy just had to pick it up and throw it into the truck.

Hey but maybe they could convince people to to the same with their guns.

Chocolate needs to be the last word. :heart: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No, shut the bloody door was always the last words I heard as I left the house.

The reason it has not been done already is simply that the NRA is enormously powerful and does not want gun control legislation of any form, no matter how practical and affordable it may be. — andrewk

The NRA might be powerful, but if the US public wanted something like gun bans there would be gun bans. The last yanks I talked to about this were living outside of the US, and they said that they paid too many taxes already, and that they were not willing to let the government tax them more so that people could have their guns taken away. Especially as the major part of gun crimes were committed with illegal guns that could not be confiscated.

Gun controls will not work, for many reasons. The only way to stop gun violence is to remove the guns.
There are an estimated 270,000,000 guns in the country, if it takes a dollar for each one to be picked up how much is that. Would that money not be better spent on education? Most think it would.

You ask a number of valid technical questions about how a proposed gun control act would work. I don't see the questions as being important to the philosophical debate though, — andrewk

Not much of the discussion has actually been philosophical, it is mostly peoples' opinions.

because we can observe that they have practical, satisfactory answers from the simple fact that most OECD countries have rules of this type and they work in an acceptable, cost-effective manner. — andrewk

You are right about that, many countries have succeeded in restricting guns. But how many of them had the amount of guns that are in the US?

For any proposed piece of legislation, however uncontroversial, I could ask dozens of important questions about who implements it, who pays, how it is enforced, what is done to protect abuse and so on, but they don't really have any bearing on the determination of whether to do the legislation unless there is reason to suppose they do not have satisfactory answers. — andrewk

So why has it not been done already, surely there are sufficient experts in the country to arrange for all of these problems to be resolved efficiently. This then, is obviously one of the reasons why legislature has not been passed.
If they thought that legislation would work they would have implemented it years ago. Most of the problems with any laws that are passed is the implementation of them, if they are not going to be enforced for whatever reason then it is a waste of time to pass them.

The other reason is the financial loses that it will incur. There are millions of registered guns that pay for permits. Gun manufactures pay taxes and provide jobs to thousands. Sales tax is paid on the guns bought. Hunting permits bring in cash to places that have very little to offer except hunting a few months a year. There are plenty of financial reasons not to bring in laws.

Apparently because a man is a man the prevailing attitude is 'Suck it up Buttercup' when it comes to their emotional needs, which men do have. While this might seem a little off-topic, please bear with me. — Antaus

I actually saw a case of this happening, on a visit to the local police station. I live in a society that is still in the men are macho era.
The guy was asked if he really wanted to accuse his partner of domestic violence. When he said that he did because she had attacked him with a knife(showing them the cut), they asked if he was prepared for his friends and neighbors to laugh at him for not being able to manage his wife. He quietly left. The friend that I was visiting told me later that the woman had come in and accused her husband of assault because he had punched her. When they picked up the man he said that he was not to blame because the police had given him permission to manage the problem himself.

Here's my legislation: — Baden

Hey, you are not a law maker are you?

Basic handguns and rifles allowed but on a licensed basis i.e. you have to pass a competency test and undergo strict background criminal and mental health checks to own one. Everything beyond that including semi-automatic weapons banned. Simple. (And no impact on the much coveted 2nd amendment as owners still have the right to bear arms just not all arms—the latter point being in principle already conceded by acceptance of the illegality of machine guns and etc.) — Baden

See, it was not hard. But some of the most brilliant minds(according to them) could not come up with that.

The problem I see is and always has been the implementation and enforcement of any kind of controls, even the simplest as you state them.
How many people are actually qualified to do mental health checks on all of the people that own guns, how many would be needed?
How many people are actually qualified to do competency testing for any kind of weapon? I doubt that there are enough to test the millions of people that own guns.
Criminal checks would not be a problem, supposedly, because everyone in the USA has a social security number and/or identity of some kind and the interstate cooperation between police forces is fantastic. So it would be easy to track down and check up on all registered gun owners. Except that there are so many that are not registered and there are a lot of fake IDs used to get jobs never mind guns.

Who would have to foot the bill for all of this? The general public, the gun owners? What would happen to all of the people that have been employed to do all of these checks once they had finished.
What about the security of the data bases used to hold all of this information? If so many other government and private sites are being hacked, would you like to have so much of your personal data in one place like that? It would almost be like a shopping list for someone that wants a gun. The would know where you live, what kind of gun you have and be able to guess when you are not home by your work details.

I don't think too many people would be willing to register their guns if they had to go through all of that. Guns can and are bought on the street and someone that wants one will get one.

Predicted result: A little less freedom (for owners of dangerous guns). A lot less death and injury for everyone else. — Baden

I would prefer less freedom for dangerous owners of guns. But yes, less death and injury would help.

Well, at least it shows you're trying to agree! :P — numberjohnny5

I always try to understand what others are saying, it is up to them to convince me to agree with them and for me to do the same.

I've never comes across this definition of "fact". — numberjohnny5

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact

There are sometimes many definitions of a word. When this happens it is necessary to provide the definition one is using to avoid problems. People tend to presume that the meaning of what they write is obvious.

Anyway, a reason why "fact" is the same as "event" is because in my ontology all things are events. In other words, all things/objects are comprised of properties in relations interacting in particular ways with other things. There's a dynamic fluidity to all that exists, and all that exists is physical, in my view. So in that sense, events are properties undergoing change. Information, as phenomena that we perceive and organise mentally, is included in this ontology. — numberjohnny5

I suppose that if this is your way of seeing things then it is acceptable, but I am still not sure whether or not I could agree with it.

I think information is a mixture of the event and our experience and processing of the event into an organised, coherent and meaningful set of statements/judgements. — numberjohnny5

This is were I disagree most. I do not see the event itself as the information. From my point of view the information is the product of the event, even if the event is just a tree sitting in the middle of a forest. The information is the description of the event.

You're conflating knowledge about events with events. They are not the same. It seems like you're defining "fact" as "knowledge-by-acquaintance" (or acquaintance knowledge). — numberjohnny5

No, you are doing that. See above. Fact and knowledge are not the same. We can have facts as knowledge but we cannot have all of the facts. My question was, if information about some obscure event in the universe is not available to us is it still a fact? Using common acceptable definitions of fact, I don't see how that is possible.

Conventionally, knowledge is justified, true belief in analytic philosophy, right? That's mental phenomena. You're saying mental phenomena about phenomena we have no mental phenomena about is not phenomena. — numberjohnny5

No, I am saying that if something is unknown then we cannot have mental phenomena about it. It is, if it is actually happening phenomena. But How does anyone know about it?

Do you have a term for phenomena we do not experience and have knowledge of then, if it's not the term "fact" for you? — numberjohnny5

The Unknown.

Let's return to my vignette about someone driving in another country being a fact/event. Would you agree that just because you or I do not know about someone driving in another country at this present moment, that it is therefore not an event that is actually taking place? That because we aren't aware of, having an experience of, or have no knowledge that someone in another country is driving right now, it is not an event? Is that your position? — numberjohnny5

Ok, I think that here is were the problem of our misunderstanding lies. If those people are driving around some place, then they are witnesses to their own events. Others would see them as well. This would be a fact.
But how can something be a fact if absolutely no one knows about it?

If a supernova occurred it would be a fact despite our lack of knowledge about it. Again, knowledge-by-acquaintance is not identical to what--the thing/event in question--we're acquainting ourselves with. Things happen, whether we are aware of them or not. — numberjohnny5

This, again, is where we diverge in agreement. Events and information cannot be the same thing. Information is the result of events, events cause information. What information is available if no event occurs? None right.

So facts are mental phenomena, for you? What's the difference between "reality" and "fact"? What are events that aren't known? — numberjohnny5

Look at any of the definitions of fact, what do they all imply? Reality is everything that is in existence, of which we know very little. Fact is what we do know about reality. Event about which we have no knowledge (unknown) are usually called unknown events because we have no facts about them. There might have been events that generated information, but we do not have the facts.

Because if events/facts only occur when minds know about them occurring, that's a causal argument. That is, you'd be positing that minds and only minds cause events to occur. — numberjohnny5

No, events occur all the time. I am positing that events can happen, do happen but we are often ignorant of their passing because we have no facts about them. No one said anything about our minds causing events to happen even though that sometimes is the case, as in the event of me replying to you.

I think that you should stop calling events facts unless you can properly explain how that is possible and where you got the definition of fact that you use.

As to it being inherently so, this comes with prioritizing being/awareness over reasoning, imo. — javra

Neither suffering nor happiness are essential parts of life, we can all live without them. I agree that we all search for and enjoy happiness and avoid suffering when possible.
But.
Love and hate, attraction and revulsion, happiness and sadness, happiness and suffering are all conditions of life. The fact that we prefer some over others does not make them less inherent in life for they are in everyone's lives whether we want them or not.

Which brings us back to the forever unanswered question.

Does life have a meaning?

Is there any inherent meaning in suffering? — Posty McPostface

I wonder what the posters above would have answered had the question been

Is there any inherent meaning to happiness?

Everyone sees the purpose of happiness in their lives for it is easy to see and explain its meaning, to make us want to keep on living. Some believe it is a part of evolution that makes us seek happiness so as to continue the race.
But it is definitely not easy to figure out what part of evolution suffering can fulfill. Maybe it is to stop us doing dangerous things that we have seen others do. But that does not seem to work because mankind loves to go to war. It does not explain suffering because of unwanted illness and situations not of our causing.

I have often wondered why so many religions have the belief that suffering is the way to heaven. It seems as though the god has some sort of sadistic intentions toward his creation. Sort of like "Let me see you hurting now and I'll pay you for it later".

Personally I don't think there is any inherent meaning to anything about life, it is just a matter of you having it so make what you can of it.

Maybe the technology has not changed much over the last decade, but society's use of that technology has changed.
When mobile phones first appeared they were very expensive, now they are so cheap that almost everyone uses them. And because so many people now use smart phones they are used instead of computers for social networking. You don't have to go home and sit at the desktop, or find a place to connect your laptop to the internet to tell everyone what you ate for lunch.

I have told you before, do not talk behind my back. If you have something to say about my way of thinking please grow a set of balls and tell me about your problem.

Thank you,have a nice day.

Let's substitute the word "event" for "fact" here. — numberjohnny5

event:
Something that happens at a given place and time

fact:
Knowledge acquired through study, experience or instruction
A collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn

I really do find that difficult to agree with. Information about the event, yes, that would be fact but the event itself no.

But in this example, mental events do not cause non-mental events to occur.
In other words, the statement/claim about someone driving in another country has no direct effect on the event of someone driving in another country. — numberjohnny5

But the event causes the information, on that we agree. This sort of brings us back to the falling tree. Millions Zillions of events are happening in the universe as we discuss this, which are facts? I think that we can only call facts the ones that we know about.
Did you read about the supernova in the Orion Belt? No,me neither. Probably because no one saw it. It might have happened or it might not. So can the supernova be a fact? Only when the information is available.

I don't define "fact" the way you do, and I don't think that's the conventional way in philosophy of talking about "fact" (not that things being unconventional/conventional are "wrong/right"). — numberjohnny5

I use the definition I gave above.

It seems that you think that facts are only facts if they are tied to truth-statements. — numberjohnny5

No, facts are only facts if they describe correctly reality. Facts are statements of truth because they describe reality.

Sure. A person driving a car in another country. — numberjohnny5

The "fact" of someone driving in another country is information, is the information not in your head?

Facts are observer-independent. Things don't graduate to become facts. Facts exist; observers can happen to experience/perceive facts; and they can make judgements about facts if or when they experience them. — numberjohnny5

Information might be observer independent, but a fact is something that has been proven/judged/evaluated to be true. That can only happen in someone's mind which means that a fact is not independent of the observer. Many things might be true even if we have no knowledge of their existence, but a fact is a human construct used to define the level of reliability of information.

I don't know what I meant either. Do you have any idea, Sir2u? :snicker: — Sapientia

Oh happy day, I am not on Sappy's list of Dingbats.

As to you question, I think that you are full of shit. Not that you are not telling the truth though, because you probably have no freakin idea what you meant. Not many others do either I think because it makes no sense at all in the context of any sane discussion.

Is it not strange that when I claimed that you should have explained better your OP in that obnoxious self pitying thread about whether philosophy makes people pretentiousness, you said that even a half witted person should be able to figure it out because it was so OBVIOUS and that there is no room for misinterpretation. But then you have the balls to post this.

That's not how the title is worded. That's just one interpretation of it. I interpreted it differently. It's down to the person behind the title to clarify its meaning. If the question is whether some people are better than others, as per the title and opening post, then my answer is yes, in some respects they are. Some people are better than others at the 100 metres, for example. — "Sapientia

One more time.
Learn to be civil, learn to try and see other peoples point of view.
And try to understand that we are not in a battle to be right all the time. You do not have to be telling people "either prove it or admit you are wrong", because you are definitely not prepared to prove anything except with bullying.

Grow up.

Have a nice day too.

I wouldn't say all facts are subjective. Some facts don't happen in the mind. — numberjohnny5

Name one please.

The reason I believe this is because I think facts are essentially events, and there exist events occurring inside and outside minds. — numberjohnny5

Is a tree in the middle of the forest an event? When does it become a fact?

What about the collective mind? saving face, hive mind, group think. Don't they count for something? — matt

Do they count for something? What part do you think they play?

I don't know if I could definitively say if truth was subjective or objective. Is it possible that truth is beyond subjectivity/objectivity. — matt

Could it be both at the same time? Could it be both at different times? Why do you think it might be objective.

I view truth as mental too. Maybe you mean "fact" by "truth"...? I use the conventional definition of "fact" as "states of affairs". — numberjohnny5

You are right.
Both fact and truth are subjective, they both happen in the mind. I would really like to see someone point out a truth in the street. Truth and fact are descriptive of the events and objects of the external world. And the are both relative to point of view.
If I am in the north in winter and you in the south it will be summer. The sun Is way down south is what I would say but you would say no it is on top of us. If the sun was over the equator both statements, the sun is in the north and the sun is in the south are true at the same time.

We judge, measure, compare the objects in our minds, even if we take measurements with a ruler, the results are processed in the mind.

Bigger/smaller/faster/slower/etc. are comparative measurements of phenomena, right? Where in the world does the act of measuring occur? — numberjohnny5

Exactly, the fact that you can measure 1km using a measuring device make no difference to the fact that both the km and the 1 only exist in the mind. As Plato said mathematics is what we use to describe the universe.

It was in the jeans~ — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Did they fit so well you lost your mind looking at its rear end?

Yes some people are better than others. They think outside themselves and appreciate the experience of others. — matt

Is this an innate quality of humans or is it something they learn.
If it is innate then in some way it must be genetic and passed on from parents, this does not happen. Many good parents have bad kids and bad parents good kids. And the physical part of it is so bad that beautiful parents in excellent health have had kids that are ugly as sin and as sickly as it is possible to be and continue living
If it is learned, then they are better because society made them better. This is also not true because two people that grow up living next door to each other, go to the same school, have the same friends, have parents that are interchangeable and can still turn out completely different.

The betters also apperciate everything revelatory as if it were significant. Hope can only lie in some kind of faith of truth and beauty. — matt

I have 2 students that suffer from mental short comings, I have never seen anyone else get so happy when they have accomplished their tasks successfully. Does that make them better than the others?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5997656/moped-gang-oxford-street-machete-watches-of-switzerland-robbery/

Who needs guns to scare the shit out of people and maybe kill a few off at the same time?

Damn — Bitter Crank

Suck it up and get used to it. :smirk:

doesn't mean that the obvious next step is sending out the poison gas vans to despatch everybody who fails to be "better". — Bitter Crank

In the movie Logan's Run the people were elevated or something at 30, basically killed off, because they were considered to have used up their useful years and there was a limit to the amount of resources that could be dedicated to each person.
In the movie "Children of Men", the government offered a chance to the old, sick and invalid folks to leave to better climates and then drowned them.

Would it not be a wonderful world where they tell you at 65 that that you have chance to "move up" instead of sitting around the house all day with nothing to do. And then they kill you because society has no use for you.
Look at the situation in a lot of countries around the world where thousands of people are living non productively until they are a hundred or more. How long do you think it will be before some idiotic politician comes up with these ideas?

ain't nottin atall rong wid it.

Just that I am not so bloody lucky. :cry:

Give me a pencil. :naughty: — Bitter Crank

It asked WHERE, not how. :sad:

I would prefer to be more talented, fit, attractive, intelligent, and motivated, than less so, because higher levels of these features enable one to engage the human and physical world more successfully. — Bitter Crank

The fact that I would prefer does not make it so, that is a dream. You might wish for it but you are what you are.
Imagine yourself on a scale from one to a thousand, taking into account your talents, fitness, emotions intelligence, ESP and all of the other things that make you you. If each part of you has a score, in some areas you might be high while in others low. Where would you be on the scale?
Now tell me, who gets to draw the line where people become better than others? Yes the ones with higher score would seem logically to be better than those with lower scores.
But for instance, a guy with a very low score might have an immune system that has prevented him from ever being sick.
Another with a very low score has a photographic memory and can play a piano concert after hearing it only once.
A guy with a very high score spends his time spending his rich wife's money in fancy restaurants, gyms and fine cloths

IF one would prefer to be more talented, fit, attractive, intelligent, and motivated, apparently one thinks it would be better. — Bitter Crank

Some preferences are not better. Some people prefer to drink than smoke. Which is better.
Some people are quite happy that their educational level does not allow them to get a better job because they don't want responsibilities and might lose the benefits and subsidies the government gives them. They don't think it would be better.

What about the people that suffer Downs syndrome, do they not also think of themselves as talented, fit, attractive, intelligent, and motivated. Would, do they want to be better?

You and Sapientia seem to be in need of couple's therapy. — Bitter Crank

Actually we are not a couple, why would anyone want a partner with such a bad attitude.
Only he is ever right, or you agree with him or you get dismissed as being stupid.

But thanks for the thoughts anyway. :smile:

As I said once before, or maybe several times. It is people that kill, not guns. And if people do not have access to guns they will use something else.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/london-murders-t-halted-york-141410483.html

According to Wikipedia, in The Social Organism, Herbert Spencer compares society to a living organism, and argues that, just as biological organisms evolve through natural selection, society evolves and increases in complexity through analogous processes. — Sapientia

Wonderful bit of research there, well done.
Oh, sorry i had not noticed that you had referenced the idiot's guide to superior wisdom.

At least find a legitimate page to use as a reference. Wiki is about the same level in truth value as the Sun.

No, we're not, and your subsequent statement contradicts this, as worded. You're just not being clear with your meaning. — Sapientia

If you cannot read what it says there, that is your problem not mine.

You mean that we are equal in some respects, and in some respects we should be treated as equals in spite of our differences. — Sapientia

No, I mean quite simple that we are all equal, just different.

How do you justify your use of the word better?
A dead person uses less resources and causes less pollution that a live person, a rich person uses more resources and contaminates more than a poor person. Which is the better person? Logically it would be the dead one.

If I can say it clearly, as I've just demonstrated, then why couldn't - or why didn't - you? Is it because it would ruin your comment? You had it set up so nicely (or so it might seem), but then I come along and pick holes in it. — Sapientia

Piss of. See I am learning from you Socrates. When I don't feel like answering someone's post I will just insult their intelligence.

The question is: Are some people better than others? — Purple Pond

We all come into the world in basically the same way.
We all have the same basic needs to live.
We are all going to end up dead.

The day one of these changes I will say yes, some people are better than others. Human beings are all equal, no matter what they look like, what their health is, how intellectual or not they are.

But if we talk about the people as an individuals with sets of traits, as separate entities then I would have to answer that some are different from others.

But who is to say exactly what is better than something else.

Would it be better or worse for a kid to have a sick father or no father?
Would it be better for a couple who have tried for years to have children, to have a disabled son or no son at all?
Which would be the better football team, the ones that did not really have to exert themselves to win a world cup or a team of special needs children winning a match against another equal group?

Better can be a cruel word.

And in the end we all need to take a crap, and you cannot get much more equal than that.

"Are you trying to tell me that common usage has nothing whatsoever to do with the way in which we use words?" — Sapientia

That is bloody stupid. And has nothing at all to do with what I said. Why don't you stop trying so hard to put people down and give an answer to a question that should be easy for you to do.

Research. I actually found a book about the history of Chambers Dictionary which I was able to access online, and it said what I told you: that recent editions abide by the usage principle in their ordering. — Sapientia

Oh dear, and you did not think that I might be interested in having the link to it. Wait, I think I already know your answer, "google it yourself". But I already did that and I failed to find it. So please try to be nice and share.

No, not sensible to whom. Just sensible. — Sapientia

I brought my umbrella to work today, does that seem sensible to you. But then you are probably going to say that it would depend on why I did it. If was it raining then yes it would be sensible, if not then probably not sensible.
So to whom would it be sensible to if not everyone has all of the facts. Things making sense or not do depend on facts don't they?

:lol:

Really? — Sapientia

Sad when all you can do to hide your inadequacies is try to put people down. Someone asks you a serious question and you don't even try to be polite about not answering. But that is part of your style also, so I guess we will have to put up with it as long as you are here.

That isn't something I often say, actually. I don't know where you're getting that from. And please don't waste your time hunting around for quotes. The key word is "often". — Sapientia

I have no need for searching, you just told us that you have used that phrase, just not "often". So you do know that words have more than one meaning, therefore you should take the time to explain which meaning you are using so as to avoid the posibility of misunderstanding.

That's a hilarious misunderstanding. No, I'm not being critical of people asking a bunch of rhetorical questions like those in my opening post in order to make the very point that I'm making. I'm being critical of the asking of those questions, as worded and with sincerity. — Sapientia

So you are critical of people asking those types of questions with that style of wording and you don't consider them worthy of your notice or reply. But you do expect others to pay attention to your admittedly rhetorical questions and give proper answers.

rhetorical questions A statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered

It shouldn't be replaced with that question, because that would be an example of begging the question. — Sapientia

begging the question
Assume the truth of something, especially the very thing to be proved
avoid a difficult point
invite a follow up question or point

Which of these definitions of begging the question are you using, for the sake clarity.

If you are using the first definition then it makes no difference because the post makes it clear that you think philosophy attracts pretense. you would not be influencing anyone with the question.

If you are using the second definition, what is the situation you are trying to avoid.

If you are using the third then you would want to ask the question because that is your stated purpose of the post.

And, although I could have added, "And why?", I'm pretty sure that people already had that idea. Just look at the replies. — Sapientia

Is "pretty sure" the same as being sure. I do not think that they are quite the same, and if it was my OP I would try to be sure that people understood what I was asking and that I do expect answers to my rhetorical questions.

Most people do not respond to rhetorical questions

rhetorical question A statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered

Anyway, can't be bothered with the rest of your post. Sorry, not sorry. — Sapientia

Now why is that not a surprise? Actually I never imagined that you even try to answer the rest of it. It is not your style.

So OK, just answer one more question.

Despite the similarity in wording, pretentiousness - which is synonymous with ostentatiousness - does in fact have a different meaning to what I was getting at - which is more like self-deception. — Sapientia

How did you ever manage to get pretence to mean self deception?

I started a thread on this same subject at the old place about 8 years ago. But I was honest enough to actually say what I thought.
It was called "A big, long winded rant on "The Pretentiousness of Philosophers". I think that the OP was about 1000 words. There was quite a bit of serious discussion contained in the thread. Unfortunately I am blocked from viewing it so I cannot make a copy.

I think that you see yourself as some sort of modern Socrates, Always trying to provoke people into thinking and reasoning. I cannot remember the source, I think it was from Plato, where Socrates described himself as a fly continually irritating a half dead horse or something like that. The horse was ancient Athens and he considered it his god given job to provoke the people into thought. He too was well known for never giving answers to the questions he posed. And he only got invited to one drink for his services to the state even though he thought that he deserved a free meal every day for life.

Someone, please tell a joke or something.

We cannot let the last word be a sad one.

:party:

Stop it. You want to behave like kids, go somewhere else. — jamalrob

Sorry, it is just that I was having so much with with the cuddly little guy I forgot to be serious. Maybe it was the influence the thread had on me. :pray: Forgiveness please. :smile:

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel to make your point. Just type it into google. You have to look harder to find your meaning. It's typically further down the list - if it's even there at all, which it isn't in some cases - and these lists are typically ordered in terms of most-to-least common usage - and recent editions of The Chambers Dictionary are no exception, as I have discovered. In your own definition of "pretence", "pretentiousness" is fifth down. And in your definition of "pretentious", there was only a single word which backs up your meaning, namely "phoney", amongst all of the other words, which back up my meaning. That should tell you something. — Sapientia

Are you trying to tell me that the meaning of words is based up the position on the scale of common usage. That sounds silly.
A word that means something still means the same no matter where it is in a dictionary. And how did you figure out that they are placed in order of common usage?

It would have been more sensible for you to have picked definition number one for each word. That would have been more likely to be a correct interpretation, and, funnily enough, that's what I meant, as I've made clear. But instead, you jumped in with your own interpretation, stubbornly stuck by it, and even went so far as to cherry-pick out of less common usage to back it up. — Sapientia

Sensible to whom? You. Just because that fits your way of thinking does not make the only way of thinking.

But all of this is beside the point, since my meaning is what matters, not yours, since I asked the question. And my meaning has been clarified, so there should be no further misunderstanding from you about what is meant from that point onwards. — Sapientia

And here we get to the point. How is one supposed to know your meaning? How is one supposed to know what you expect for an answer? As you so often say, words have many meanings, how does anyone know which meaning you are using? Or should we go by the top ten chart?

All you did in your post was to do what you are bitching about in it. Stack up a bunch of questions. You later claim that you would expect people to post questions that required some thinking, that would be of interest to you.

I understand the asking of a question like, "What are the strengths and weaknesses of faith?", more than I understand the asking of a question like, "What is faith?". I don't think that they're equivalent in meaning, and if they were, why not express it as the former, so as to avoid the kind of misunderstandings you'd get with the latter? — Sapientia

"Don't question", just "Question wisely". — Sapientia

"What is Google?" — Sapientia

Is a no no.

"What is Google at the most basic or fundamental level?" — Sapientia

Is the correct way.

So do you think a question, like the one below, that solicits a yes or no answer falls into the first or second category?

Is there something about philosophy which invites or attracts a sort of pretence? — Sapientia

Should your question not be something like;

What is it about philosophy that invites or attracts a sort of pretence?

That at least gives people the idea that you want more than a yes or no.
But because as you say, words have many meanings, would it not also have been requires of you to give a reasonable insight to what exactly you are think so that people would know what to respond to? And so as to avoid the kind of misunderstandings you'd get with the original question?

Despite the similarity in wording, pretentiousness - which is synonymous with ostentatiousness - does in fact have a different meaning to what I was getting at - which is more like self-deception. — Sapientia

Funny how when I use a certain interpretation of a sentence you quickly say that I have it wrong. That you do not mean the word as pretentious, but when others interpret it the same way

If what you say is true, you have been as pretentious as the rest of us. — T Clark

Yes, I think it's more of the case that pretentious people can invite themselves to do philosophy, or art, or write poetry, or compose music, or.... — Janus

you laugh it off

T Clark It's called disillusionment. — Sapientia

or ignore it.

My question was not about whether philosophy attracts pompous, self-important, foolishly grandiose, affected, showy or ostentatious people. — Sapientia

That is a shame, it might have made for an interesting discussion.

If you claim that that'd be an unintended consequence of an affirmative answer to what I am asking, then okay, but even if you're right, that wasn't the focus of my question. — Sapientia

Nice side step there. But the fact still remains that you did not specify your focus. You just did a question dump.

I've elaborated on the meaning of my question — Sapientia

After the fact, I would have thought you did not approve of people doing things like that.

But it seems that on page 5 some people still don't know what you are talking about.

I wonder what sort of pretence, exactly, you think philosophy might invite. Like, that we are just pretending that we do not know something, maybe? — Moliere

But with you, it seems to be a problem. Why is that, I wonder? — Sapientia

Could it possibly be because I am not up to the level of your high and mighty attitude.

I have some interest in finding things out, but I lack interest in allowing you to set the agenda if that's the best you can come up with. More specificity, and I might bite. — Sapientia

How far down the rabbit hole are you? — Sapientia

I do try to shake some sense into those who seem to be lost and struggling to find their way back to reality. — Sapientia

Stop asking me time-wasting loaded questions, please. — Sapientia

That's a pretty good reply, in contrast to some pretty awful replies that this discussion has attracted. You know who you are, so take note. — Sapientia

Anyone who can read and has half a brain will be able to compare the two and note the difference, — Sapientia

Yes, it is, if you find that kind of thing interesting. Of course, that wasn't a genuine example, but an example of my smartasrsery. — Sapientia

↪Bitter Crank No, no, you just need to look a little deeper. Try again in another ten years. — Sapientia

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel to make your point. — Sapientia

It's not so hard when you're as wise as me. — Sapientia

:wink: