do the Israelis possess any right to be where they are?
— tim wood
Of course. — Tzeentch

Then a decent respect for those rights ought call for the inclusion of some acknowledgement of them and the attacks on them. For the rest, I agree.

Edit: As to the VC and the Taliban, the VC do not belong in this group - a separate discussion. But in glossing over who and what they are - e.g., the Taliban - you implicitly excuse them. And excusing without cause is imo a great mistake. Aesop covered this in his fable of the frog and the scorpion crossing the river, and no doubt a story even older than that.

Hoo-ee! $83.3M smackers! And that appears so far to have slightly modified his behaviour, proving that even rats can learn, at least for a while, if you hit them up-side the head with a brick. I wonder if it occurs to him that he could have saved a lot of money by just keeping quiet. Just the sort of sensitive and intelligent man we want running our country!

and could have solved this situation if it wanted to. Israel of course sabotaged the solutions. — Tzeentch

Never the Palestinians any responsibility; never did they reject anything. Maybe neither wanted/wants a two-state solution. Your blinders are on and working very well. Answer this: to your mind, in your own thinking, never mind anyone else, do the Israelis possess any right to be where they are?

And again we agree - I agree with you: existential necessity mandating equal rights and for my money in one country, not two.

They're also the ones who have held all the cards for the past 40 years. — Tzeentch

Really! You hold all the cards, yet I bomb your restaurants and buses, murder and outrage your people, wage wars against you, make clear I want you dead and gone and in any pause still fire rockets at you and commit any mayhem I can. And you think you hold the cards? Just who do you think is in control of the chaos, making it happen? If I bash you on the snout with a club, is it the fault/cause/responsibility of your nose? Are you a villain if you defend your nose? Have you nothing at all to say about the depredations by the Palestinians and their friends?

And the consequence of ignoring their role is to reduce them, implicitly making them just vermin and rats, vicious and beyond any possible responsibility, not even worth mentioning. And further implying your own thoughts are suspect or compromised, being victim to clever, unconscionable, very costly propaganda.

But you're right, the Israelis have got to do or die. But what right you to criticize what under necessity they have to do?!

Israel cannot be secure without normal relations with its neighbors, which requires it to find an acceptable solution to the Palestinian problem. — Tzeentch

And if you live next to a murderous rapist, you shall just have to provide an endless supply of daughters and wives for rape, murder, and mutilation, yes? No?

There is sense to your proposition that existentially the Jews have got to figure it out. But it seems to me to ignore the monster in the room, namely that the Palestinians and their neighbors want the Jews dead and Israel gone and apparently accept no moral constraint in pursuing that end. Nor do I see how they can be dealt with in good faith when murder is their avowed policy and goal.

However unappealing it might be for some people in Israel to have to change its identity, it's simply the only option if it wants to continue its existence. It also happens to be a just option: Israel solves its issue of strategic vulnerability, and in return for the territory grants the Palestinian people equal rights.
Is it the dream solution for either side? No. But it's infinitely more workable than the mess they're in now. — Tzeentch

Here we agree. Equal rights - no doubt a probationary period desirable for obvious reasons - and one nation. May I offer an analogy for comparison: the practical and legal impossibility of interracial relationships in most of the US has yielded in one lifetime to their being a commonplace. Pay attention to US advertising and you will see that many couples and families depicted are multiracial - that of course because the advertisers want to appeal to the largest market. Unremarkable today, but even 60 years ago impossible, and in real life possibly fatal.

Perhaps if it seems both necessary and wise for the Israelis to think in existential terms, maybe it should be suggested to the Palestinians and their friends that they do likewise. This of course presupposing that Israelis and Palestinians et al share at least some common values - and there is reason to believe that they do not.

And here another video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5wVaNknEkY
A bit long, but can be speeded up.

explain where Friedman's 'analysis' goes wrong? :chin: — 180 Proof

Nothing. He said that the Israeli far right and the Palestinians/Hamas (PH) have in common that they both "want it all." As to the Israeli far right, I wouldn't know, and I suspect that what they want is peace, security, safety. As to PH, they have made clear beyond all doubt that they want the destruction of Israel and Jewish Israelis, and they act on that whenever they can on both large and small scale.

He says Netanyahu is bad. And so he seems to be, although imo his prosecution of the war, with its goal the destruction of Hamas and the pacification of Gaza, is in response to 7 Oct. correct - for what else should he do or have done? He says Israel does not have a day-after plan. Maybe not, but once PH Gaza pacified, the business of peace can start. And to be sure, he is also reestablishing Israeli security hegemony.

And he said that bottom line it's a proxy war with Iran - no disagreement here. Is there something I missed you would like to point out?

Thank you!

I think the main problem is that some people think there's a moral equivalence between the violence of Palestinians and Israel. — Benkei

Which, if I understand, you deny. And I agree. But I think you use "moral equivalence" here as a Trojan horse to gain entry for your own peculiar moral outrage.

I think the 7 October actions of Hamas were amoral/immoral in the worst sense, and an offense (imo) calculated by Hamas to require a substantial Israeli response, Perhaps even as great as that response has been in fact, for what else could reasonably be expected? Hamas arguably made their decision with a comprehensive understanding of what would happen in Gaza to Gazans - they knew.

Is the Israeli response moral or immoral? Or is morality even an appropriate metric? Is war ever moral? Moral or not, sometimes necessary. I hold the Israelis to be under necessity, a necessity imposed by Hamas now and its predecessors in the past, ultimately powered by an immoral, irrational, fanatical hatred of Israel and Jews, being expressly committed to their death and destruction.

Are some actions of Israel and some actions of some Israelis immoral? Maybe - probably: but the difficulty here is in the categorical nature of any labelling, and as well laying out and making clear what antecedent events may have been causative. Israel bombs an apartment building, a terrible thing, unless they have good reason to believe their enemy is there - which they do! And so it comes back to Hamas and their ilk, and their essential, categorical immorality of hate. As such they deny their own humanity, and in their actions force their own destruction.

And in a way, in your categorical condemnation of Israel and defense of the Palestinians, you yourself deny the humanity of the Palestinians, rendering them pure victim as to their circumstance and pure rat as to their actions. I myself reject that stance and thus your arguments, the Palestinians being human and retaining all of their humanity. But in the hubris of their hate they bring upon themselves their own continuing destruction, which makes all of this a real tragedy. The moment at Colonus to be written, which no reasonable person should think will be easy.
---------------
No need to either read or reply to the following. We disagree on some details.

1. Israel to unilaterally recognise a right for the Palestinians to have a sovereign state where the 1967 borders will be the basis for the size of Palestine
2. stop all further settlements in WB and evictions in East-Jerusalem, recognise ownership rights in East Jerusalem
3. repeal all discriminatory laws in Israel proper
4. no more collective punishment of Palestinians
5. no more blockade of Gaza and its air space and sea
6. no more mass destruction in response to ineffectual missiles or balloons
7. tear down the wall
8. For the interim period, Gaza and WB remain occupied territories but they will be policed instead of military oppression
9. Palestinians to commit to an indefinite cease fire as long as Israel maintains the above 8 points
edit: 10. forgot: Palestinians to recognise Israel along the 1967 borders as the basis of the size of israel — Benkei

1 &10) Reconcile? Reconcilable? Or are you agreeing with me that both should be in the same place?
5) And will you guarantee bad people and weapons are not brought in?
6) Why don't you redraft this to make it more sensible.
7) See 5.
8) And for this, policed by a robust UN force of peacekeepers - not the IDF.
9) Palestinians, and Israelis, to commit to the causes of peace.
_______________

Enter into the transition period where Palestine should be set up:
1. include the political wing of Hamas in talks as well as PA
2. land-for-land exchanges to arrive at comparable land size
3. Israel to pay Palestine an amount equal to all the monies spent supporting illegal settlers so it has the means to settle the new lands it receives through the land-for-land exchange
4. Palestine to hire their own first and Israeli contractors second (which will lead to "reparations" flowing back to Israel and creating economic interdependence)
5. have religious leaders negotiate the Temple Mount
6. Jerusalem as independent city-state administered by Palestinians and Israelis alike
7. gradually transition policing activities in Palestine to Palestinians
8. Set up a special task force of like minded Israelis and Palestinians to investigate (terrorist) crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and vice versa, where jurisdiction will be with the state of the victim
9. retreat from WB and Gaza and set up border controls
10. Declare a Palestinian state
11. Party with your Israeli neighbours — Benkei

1) Hamas? Why?
2) In my opinion, this does not work. Fate has brought Israeli and Palestinian together; let them figure out how to live together.
3) No.
4) No. Let them hire freely.
5) No. Let it be a free zone, to the degree anyone thinks it important.
7) Perhaps with a blue-helmet force, Palestinians involved from the beginning - and necessarily, imo.
8) A kind of truth commission? I would opine that the terrorist crimes against Israel are countless, but can you list one terrorist crime by Israel against Palestine?
9) And who, exactly, declares? And under what obligation that whom shall take on and satisfy?

This is what Gideon Levy, a well-known Israeli journalist and author, has to say about it. — Tzeentch

Yes, I saw that. Two-state solutions over the years were shot down by the Palestinians. To my eyes, looking at the maps, they all seem absurd on their face. What Levy is about is one state with equal rights for all. And all reasonable people should want that. But the oft and explicit statements of the Palestinians and the neighbors that their only goal is murder of the Jews and the annihilation/destruction of Israel, leads a reasonable person to question the efficacy of reasonable solutions.

Perhaps after Hamas is destroyed, which I believe is an Israeli military goal, and based on 7 Oct., an exactly correct military goal, they might say to the Palestinians something like this: "You can have peace and prosperity, rights and safety, or you can have war. We're better at war than you are; why don't we try peace?" But alas, I do not think the Palestinians are at the moment, and maybe for another generation, able to give a competent answer.

To my way of thinking, in any contest there are the politics of the contestants. And with wars, the victor usually imposes, for better or for worse, and the WWI treaty of Versailles seems to have been much for the worse. There is also the "politics" of the solution, aka, the reality of the situation. It was recognized, for example, that notwithstanding the unconditional surrenders of Germany and Japan in 1945, and war crimes and crimes against humanity, that the peoples of those countries could not be denied, and thus over time they were rehabilitated. And neither could what that process required be denied - hindsight at best suggesting improvements for future implementations.

Or in short, I see and understand honesty as being a part of reality. As this reality is of the future, and thus not-yet, and honesty of the present, of the now, it would seem that honesty is the best approach to he future.

But do you understand that if Palestinians were to be given equal rights, there would be more Palestinians living in Israel than Jews, and Israel would subsequently cease to be a Jewish state? — Tzeentch

Granting everything else in your post (although I am unaware of any language in what you cite that, including constraints, restrictions, or burdens on Israel, at the same time mandates protection of Israel for complying with any of those), how do the Israelis protect themselves from anything and everything from rocket and terrorist attacks to invasions? If they and the Palestinians/neighbors would even agree to a quid pro quo of concessions for peace, then good! But the history suggests that not only will the Palestinians not agree, but will act to subvert any possible agreement.

As to population, if ultimately the Jews in Israel cannot sustain their own population, then indeed they will eventually disappear. But imo a risk that must be accepted and taken.

Here's why the issue isn't just about details, it's far more worse. — ssu

I acknowledge. And if the infection is both terminal and inevitably fatal, then perhaps the right prophylaxis is simply the slaughtering of all of those infected, as with diseased population of birds, sheep, pigs, cows, & etc. But as I hold that in fact hope is always possible, and in principle always given and granted, then we must all hold on to hope. That is, any solution must satisfy the requirements that the solution itself imposes, or it be found to be no solution at all, but simply a middle-east treaty of Versailles - an armistice for a time. And I think time is a main ingredient, along with the eventual dying out of the haters. To facilitate an interim peace, however long it takes, I'd be in favor of a robust blue-helmet presence to protect the peace, well-being, safety, and rights of both sides.

Thank you for the answer!

They should start with carrying out the dozens of (legally binding) UNSC resolutions calling them, among other things, to stop settling the West Bank, — Tzeentch

It appears that ownership of the West Bank falls to Israel - or beyond that is by default Israel's and beyond that not a question with a simple answer. So exactly why should Israel "stop settling the West Bank"?

to stop creating unlivable living conditions on the West Bank and Gaza, — Tzeentch

I hold it is at least debatable as to who is creating unlivable conditions in Gaza - maybe the Palestinians have something to do with that? As to the West Bank, I agree. If the Israelis are creating unlivable conditions on the West Bank, then they should both stop and reverse those actions.

They should probably also stop skirting the line of genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid, — Tzeentch

The war in Gaza - I hold it to be a war and not a genocide - was ignited by Hamas, and Hamas can act to end it. Are the hostages returned? In my opinion it is charitable to suppose Hamas is completely responsible and not others like at least some of the Palestinian people, with encouragement from the neighbors. But at least that means that Hamas being destroyed, the Israelis ought to stop their main military activities - leaving the other actors intact. And Hamas can surrender.

Please make your case for "ethnic cleansing." In my opinion the Israelis are waging a terrible war, but
against the backdrop of 7 Oct., what do you say they should do/have done?

Maybe if the state of Israel stops its flagrant breaches of IHL and human rights, its neighbors would change their disposition towards them. — Tzeentch

Flagrant? On the basis of the actions of Palestinian Hamas on 7 Oct., I would say that any civil rights they had are suspended pending military resolution. And in this I find the inherent bias. The Israelis are wrong and the Palestinians including Hamas are right. And as a starting point, that just does not make sense.

Things get a lot more complicated if what you're actually asking is what Israel should do if it wants to continue everything listed above and suffer no consequences for it. — Tzeentch

I think my own answer is inevitable, if there is to be peace. I have in mind the examples of Japan and Germany. Destroyed in 1945, now prosperous, free, and powerful, though it has taken the work of three generations to this point. And a joint Israeli-Palestinian state so that the Palestinians have a fast track to being equal stakeholders. And for that end, I do not think the Israelis are the ones holding them back, but rather all those who have made a life and career out of Jew-hating, even at the cost of their own lives and the lives of those they're responsible for.

He doesn't know shit about the subject but insists on posting crap.
Edit: check page 76.
— Benkei
↪tim wood That page is simply proof where you yourself admit you don't know what you're talking about. I didn't say I specifically spoke to you then now did I? Try again. — Benkei

I admit this would probably be better in a PM, but the problem is that Benkei is being disingenuous to the point of lying, and that worth making explicit. Here is what I wrote, from page 76:

I don't pretend to any special knowledge of these events. — tim wood

And this in defense of my objecting to someone else cherry-picking some statistics.

Now I might be mistaken as a matter of fact, but I suspect that no one here - except maybe ssu - has any special knowledge. And yet many here argue/rant from a position of claimed knowledge, which, again subject to correction, I think no one (else) here has. That is, almost everyone here has their built-in biases, prejudices, presuppositions, and that is their starting point. Now, I have been asking two simple questions that no one has answered - I've given my own answers and will repeat them. Two sentences sufficient to answer both, and nothing in response but evasion and calumny.

They are, 1) what exactly, near as you can tell, do the Palestinians want? And 2) what in your opinion should the Israelis do?

These with 7 October as a backdrop.

Near as I can tell, the Palestinians, along with most of the rest of the neighbors, want the annihilation/deaths/evaporation of all the Jews and for Israel not to exist. (Never mind the irony of wanting something to not exist, acknowledgment of the existence of which is always already denied.) And what the Israelis should do is simply enfranchise the Palestinians by declaring Israel a joint Israeli-Palestinian state - with no doubt a lot of details to be worked out.

These two questions, elementary as they may be, are forward looking. And to any unable or unwilling to assay any answer, being instead content to whine about what are, finally, their own tender feelings, it may be said that before anything else they might seek therapy.

People in such political threads, even mods, often forget that we are in a philosophy forum — neomac

Amen.

I would love to have a discussion with you but gave up on tim 2 years ago. He doesn't know shit about the subject but insists on posting crap.

Edit: check page 76. — Benkei

I scrolled through p. 76 twice. didn't find you there. Try again? And how does it happen that listening to both sides - or trying to - attending to the news, and thinking about it, is crap?

Given your invective and nonresponse, I accuse you of things too terrible to mention here, but that seem obvious given your inability/unwillingness to do anything else but blame Israelis for basically defending their own lives. On planet earth only one people is routinely disqualified from that right, and only one kind of person so disqualifies them.

So the basic message of that video: once you have war, then you can steal land. — ssu

Are you arguing here that the Israelis start wars against their neighbors in order to take their land?

It seems about right to you because you're dumb. There has been plenty of discussion about war and annexation of land in this thread, — Benkei

It has been my impression that much of the many pages of this discussion has been about cherry-picking the history, even thousands of years of it. By which process pretty much anything can be proved. My own view is that sometimes history need not be consulted, that sometimes an event is sufficient in itself for all purposes, and I hold the events of 7 October to have made that just such a day. And it seems reasonable to me that the Israelis should in response seek the destruction of Hamas. And by reasonable I mean susceptible to reason and in particular not to be properly resolved by knee-jerk faux and misplaced compassion. Ranting may feel good, but as with other exercises of personal pleasure, is most seemly kept private.

As to waging war to take land being illegal, no complaints here, but what exactly then were the purposes of Israel's enemies in attacking Israel as many times as they have?

I'm dumb but you're smart. Tell us then what in your well-considered opinion is the purpose of the Palestinians, at least as expressed by their government - no doubt individuals might express an entire spectrum of desires. That is, what, exactly, do you say they want? And what, exactly - same exercise - do you say the Israelis should do?

Two sentences from you should suffice. Are you up to it?

Dumb. As usual. — Benkei

The only thing dumb is your remark about the video(s). Which inclines me to believe the fellow who makes them, in all of his videos that you are so dismissive of, is making good points. I myself am not in a position to verify them, but they seem about right.

Another video - brief:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qg-DH_ipvTQ

He might say that he while he finds the world to be a matter of qualities in themselves never quite perfect, in the world of ideas he finds no true example of perfection. Moreover, there can be no perfect thing as such, perfection being merely an absence of imperfections. One could say, for example, that this knife is not perfectly sharp, but at the same time unable to specify what perfect sharpness is. And the same with horses, chairs, justice, courage, good, beauty, and so forth.

And what they both might have ended up with is mathematics, which in fact was the majority report of the Pythagoreans. But it would take almost 2,000 years before Galileo would pronounce it explicitly for the rest of us..

It kinda feels like a hard determinism all the way down the chain that this shit was bound to happen anyways. — Vaskane

And it wouldn't if we could all just have a Rodney King-like epiphany. HIm who said, "I just want to say – you know – can we, can we all get along? Can we, can we get along? Can we stop making it horrible for the older people and the kids?"

Apply that everywhere and the world becomes a paradise for all who live in it. Those who do not or will not the real criminals and enemies.

I made a surprising discovery today: It's the first time in my life that I've asked how to learn math! Previously, I was stuck in my old patterns repeatedly. — YiRu Li

Very much sense in this - and to be mined from it. Our first "patterns" - lost to the memory of most folks, of how to see, hear, walk, talk, read , write, & etc. - relatively small-seeming (although not small at all) yield to larger and ever larger patterns. When does it stop? Only when a person quits. So it becomes necessary at some point, imho, to break the pattern of patterns, becoming and being thus free of them - a "pattern" so to speak of being and becoming.

An example: I am learning a second language. At the first it is the letters, then the words, then a bit of grammar and syntax. And so one reads, a word at a time. With much practice one learns to read phrase by phrase, even sentence by sentence, learning the "music" of the language and what that says and how it works, finding meaning that is inaccessible reading word-by-word. And it just keeps going.

But people, individuals, do not "just keep going." So that is one of many life problems, how to reconcile one's finitude, that I am going to die, with the near-endless everything. My own solution, such as it is, is make my decisions as consciously as I can, to own them, and to be self-accepting. It sounds good; we'll see how it goes.

I imagine you are Chinese, and possibly in China. It is not at all clear to me that Chinese culture, now or ever, has ever encouraged or fostered personal-individual freedom. But on this I will take correction.

May I ask for your advice on how to learn math, or an example of effective math learning?

It was only when I started memorizing and practicing all the examples my math teacher taught that I saw improvement.... Unfortunately, this pattern seems to repeat in my life. — YiRu Li

Unfortunately? What (else) did you expect? I am persuaded the capabilities of most folks are far greater than what is asked of them or that they ask of themselves. The implication is that people hold themselves back, individually and collectively.

Advice on learning math? Clearly you have answered that question for yourself. And no doubt as your knowledge increases, so will your abilities - bigger steps, faster steps.

And for instruction, Youtube itself is an inexhaustible library of instruction. MIT lectures an example. NP-completeness is an interesting topic; see what lectures you can find on it, and if they're of any interest to you.

Interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_F321Gx5k5E

I'm tempted to say that 'other universes' is an incoherent idea. — Wayfarer

Well then, I guess God is the only answer. Of course that comes with its own set of problems, not least the violation of natural laws in this Universe. The right answer of course is, "I don't know."

Now it seems to me that appeals to the supernatural represent a discontinuous shift, while the idea of a Universe isn't just an idea, but it appears to be a fact. And to suppose that maybe the universe, the size of which we have no idea, is larger than we suppose, and that it may be big enough to contain other universes - and how shall we define that? - is no more than the leap made in the early 1900s until which time only one galaxy was supposed to exist. The evidence, to be sure, is different, but neither is disqualified.

As to defining "universe," perhaps a place where one set of laws and conditions prevails. Other universes different laws and conditions. Rees makes clear in his own speculations that the particulars would determine the manner and duration of a universe's life. If memory serves, he also references both strong and weak anthropic principles.

And as this is speculation - and may necessarily remain speculation per the TED talk you reference - there's not much room for argument, except maybe against a claim of incoherence: please demonstrate any incoherence.

I've got that book. Rather a dull read, I will say, but the philosophical implications are very interesting. The point of the six numbers is not that they are one factor among others, but that if any one of them were even minutely different, there'd be no others.

Have a listen to Harry Cliff's 2016 TED talk about the Higgs Field and Dark Energy - and the 'end of physics'. — Wayfarer

As dull as some of the other books we all love and have read?

A quibble: "there'd be no others"; to be qualified by appending, "in this universe, but apparently likely, even inevitable, in some other - many other - universes." And there seems to be an underlying rule: that what seems unlikely at one scale becomes commonplace at a different scale. Which in turn pushes ultimate questions to further extremes and makes their answers the more remote - although, under this rule, it seems they must likely all fit together in some obvious fashion in some comprehensive description.

E.g., there are 52! possible orderings of a simple deck of cards, which makes the appearance of any of them a miracle. But expand understanding to to include the workings of a deck of cards, and it all becomes a commonplace. Or from a different angle, the game of baseball played according to a set of rules. It can be understood, enjoyed, and played. Or one can delve in to the physics of bat and ball and speed and gravity and friction, and so on, but in that case, baseball itself is left behind and lost. So in some sense at least it becomes a matter not of what something is, but how it is regarded.

Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe, Martin Rees. In his last chapter, the author speculates that the universe is far vaster than we see; that our "universe" is one of very many within it; and that "universes" come and go, their duration and circumstances determined by among other things his six numbers. Fwiw.

How about a grading system for posts. I imagine it working this way. A small crew of highly-regarded participants volunteer to be on call. When called upon, they enter perhaps a letter grade at the top of the post. And it might be S(atisfactory) or U(nsatisfactory) and within these two an added letter grade A,B,C,D, or F.

That is, I see a post and think it awful and call on the "team." He, she, or they decide whether to read and grade the post and if yes then post the grade. And I and the rest of us can see at a glance if the post is worth reading, or is instead just a stupid and abusive piece of slime best avoided. This post, for example, I would rate S-B or S-C. And I might reserve S-A and S-B for life changing and mighty good respectively.

I hesitate to enter this conversation, — jgill

And now the hubris of the one who knows will be punished by them what don't. But just a question: some folks think math invented, and others math discovered in the sense of its being "out there" somewhere. My view is that it is discovered, but in the only place it can be found, in a mind and not "out there." And thus discovered/invented, together. What do you say, if you care to say?

I think so!
In Zhuang Zi, it is translated to 'The Identity of Contraries'.
But it's very hard to understand sometimes. — YiRu Li

As with many things, it becomes easier to understand when you stop trying so hard to understand it.

And I understand that process as at first trying to shoehorn a new idea into old understandings, where it does not fit and will not go. In time the understanding absorbs the new idea as a new idea and goes about the process of getting used to it and seeing both what it is and how it works. For me an example of this process was my learning what a function is in math - it took a while.

It has to be, since mathematical concepts are more general than physical entities, which only exist at a given coordinate in space. Mathematical truths whoever enjoy far greater comprehensivity. — Hallucinogen

Hmm. I believe, subject to correction, the question is which is prior. To my way of thinking, any concept requires a mind to conceive it. Now you may very well say that minds seem to be pretty good at modelling and describing the world, but what does the world care about minds, models, and descriptions? It operated before there were minds - no minds required, thus no concepts required.

A particle moves through space; some formulae do a good job of describing that movement and even predicting how it might go. But the particle and its movement are clearly prior. Mathematics, then, would seem to be derive from the world, the world in every sense prior.

This isn’t the logic of the starting; there can be no logic of the starting as there is, as yet, no logic. Starting is pre-analytic, thus pre-logical. Starting with an arbitrary start_starting count is an existential necessity that has no logical support. This is evidenced by the scientific method: science starts with an arbitrary starting point, the axiom. — ucarr

Amen, amen, & again amen. I wonder what fish will nibble here and be caught.

There must be a starting-point physical entity, whether differentiable, or not. So, there too must be a starting-point counting number. — ucarr

"Must be"? Why must there be? If you look closely enough, you will find the imperative securely rooted in your need for one, in the (your, and mine too) logic of the thing. But logic is descriptive and only seems to be prescriptive. That, or show, extra-logic, how and why it must be.

So the mother both of and prior to all human mothers is not human, or not material? Imho it's better to acknowledge that language and logic, like their brother arithmetic, have their limitations, beyond which, it seems to me, it is better to concede ignorance and remain grounded than to float away on nonsense.

Um, science has determined that there is not an infinite regress of material things? Kindly refer me to that determination. My own intuition, fwiw, is that pushed out to the edges and the limits, the world is just not that simple.

the truth of what an argument demonstrates — Metaphysician Undercover

And what exactly does this mean? At limits for limits, nothing. Consider it proved that either there is an infinite supply of mothers, or there must be a first motherless mother. The matter settled; we just don't know which. But now do a fast rewind of the history of life on earth. Clearly it's not infinite. Equally clearly there is no first mother. The lesson - the moral of the story - being that when thinking about limits you have to take care with your conclusions. Truth and demonstration are only truth and demonstration within the contexts that make them so, and that can break down at limits.

Given a circle, where does it begin or end? This not to suggest that being itself is in any way "circular," but instead to note that language very plausibly drives us to conclusions that make sense in language - but that language is not the subject. The trouble arises from the all-too-human impulse to say, "I know!" when in fact we don't.

As to cause, you would seem to want to have a plethora of causes, cause then being a many. I think if you look at each sense of cause closely enough, you will find that each is different. Thus not a one that is a many, but instead a heteronym, "cause," that means different things. Nor can you escape to "agency," because that too yields manys, many different kinds of agency.

"Cause" in this sense is akin to "being" in that both words informally and casually are meaningful and useful. But with these questions we take meaning to the limit, the limiting factor, and are surprised (perhaps) to find the words no longer meaningful, at least in the sense intended. (Thank you Heidegger and Collingwood.)

So is everything either part of an infinite/eternal chain of cause and effect, or alternatively is there some first thing? I don't know. Where does the circle begin and end? At least with the circle we can acknowledge that circles being as they are, the question is meaningless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U
Another worth the listen/watch.

then examining prior causality, — Philosophim

And what exactly is prior causality? Whatever it is it cannot be causality, unless "prior" is meaningless. And not being causality, then what is it?

Two examples. Revisiting mine with the dynamite. In one sense we might say that the burning fuse causes the dynamite to explode when the burn and the explosion occur at the same time in the same place in the same instant. And this makes sense for the reasons listed above. Or, I light the fuse, run and shelter behind a rock, and in a short time the dynamite explodes, and I caused it. Or, I need a stump removed and hire a man to use dynamite to remove it, which he does, and again I caused the dynamite to explode. Or I negligently leave the dynamite in a shed where it deteriorates and explodes, and again I caused it.

Second example, not original with me. A car turns over on a highway; what caused it? A road engineer might say the angle of the road camber caused the accident. Another might say road conditions caused it. Another, excessive speed. Another that the suspension on the car is responsible. And so it goes. And in passing that is why I claim scientists talk about cause and effect either only informally, or when as a term of art they know exactly what they mean.

Informally, of course, it makes sense to suppose that cause-and-effect are at work in the world. It certainly makes for simple descriptions and understandings. But looked at closely and I am not even sure the notion is coherent. It seems reasonable, then, before claims are made about first causes or any causes, that the person making the claim do the hard work of laying out an laying bare exactly what they mean by cause, and that not-so-easy to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNf40sBcvKk
Worth the listen.

Again, Vaskane joins the group of people unable to comprehend the notion that the Israelis might just feel a need to respond to the Oct. 7th attack, and to express an opinion as to what they might do, or that they think the Israelis ought to do in response, being themselves content to just rant that it's all the Jew's fault. For what? For existing? The right of defense, we suppose, is primordial. But I guess the Jew's don't have that right. Right? Yes? No?