I wonder if, should this case be taken up by the Supreme Court, whether they ought to wait and see what the outcome of the Jan 6 insurrection case is? You would think a guilty verdict in that case would have a bearing. — Wayfarer

I don't think there's any possibility SCOTUS will rule Trump ineligible, with or without that verdict. He's not charged with insurrection, so he can't be found guilty of that. I anticipate SCOTUS will probably base their decision on the lack of due process establishing he engaged in insurrection.

I had to laugh when I saw this:
RFK Jr. issues stark warning after Colorado court blocks Trump from ballot: 'Country will become ungovernable'
"If Trump is kept out of office through judicial fiat rather than being defeated in a fair election, his supporters will never accept the result. This country will become ungovernable," Kennedy, who initially launched a Democratic primary challenge to President Biden in April before switching to an independent 2024 bid in October, wrote on X.

It's hilarious because Trump's supporters still don't believe the 2020 election was fair and they never accepted the result. What's the difference?

How about "immaterial subjects" in the sense of immaterial ideas abstracted from the objective material world — Gnomon

I'm fine with that.

"Would you classify Consciousness as "immaterial"? Is the denotation "figurative" or "literal"? You tell me"

I'm willing to call it immaterial, in the narrow sense that it doesn't refer to a material object. But I usually refrain from using the term that way, because it's easily misinterpreted as an assent to the existence of immaterial objects. When discussing philosophy of mind, it's important to be clear on this, since dualists assume there to exist an immaterial component that contributes to (or governs) the mental processes. That's why I questioned you, to see if you were defending something like dualism.

The physical doesn't do what we have done. — Patterner

Yes and no.

One the one hand, we are part of the physical world: we were caused by the physical world, and operate within it.

On the other hand, you're right that our abstract reasoning skills, and other mental capacities, have resulted in some awesome things existing that otherwise would not. Thank you for reminding me of this.

The point about number is that it can only be grasped by the mind. A number doesn't exist in the same way that trees and chairs do, but numerical reasoning, and reasoning more generally, are fundamental to the understanding and to science in particular — Wayfarer

The universe operated just fine during the billions of years it existed before there were any minds around to grasp, reason,or understand anything about it. Those physical relations among objects and phenomena were present in them, despite the absence of them being described as formulae.

Well, you will have an issue accounting for the 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences' (Eugene Wigner). — Wayfarer

Not really. There are mathematical relations between the things that exist. These relations don't exist independently of the things that exhibit them. Simple example: two-ness is a property that groups of 2 have, but groups of 3 of 4 lack. This fact doesn't depend on "2" existing in a 3rd realm.

You're close. I used "reification" to refer to the treatment of an abstraction as a thing, where thing is something that exists (i.e. it is ontic; part of the ontological furniture of the world).

I don't think abstractions are ontic. I reject platonism, which treats ideal forms as ontic. It's still fine to talk about them figuratively as things, but it's unclear to me if you're talking figuratively or literally. Please clarify, because this thread is about the "hard problem" -which is only a problem for materialism. If your solution is to assume the existence of the immaterial, please state this.

And Israel is doing a very comprehensive job at this. Who's more destabilized, ruined, and fearful? Over a million Gazans, most of them children, with inadequate food, water, and shelter, being bombed daily including on routes Israel is telling them are safe, knowing that even white flags can't save them from being designated legitimate targets or the 99% of Israeli citizens suffering no such deprivations? — Baden

I agree with this, but I also hold some sympathy for the position of Israelis (not the government or military). Israelis ought not to live in fear of terrorist attacks by a neighbor. Theirs is a long term concern that is perceived (rightly? wrongly?) to be solvable by eradicating Hamas. Will their military actions accomplish this goal of eradicating Hamas? Maybe, but either way, it's likely to increase resentment and anger by Palestinians toward Israel. That is what breeds reaction, including the deplorable reaction of terrorist action. Hence there's no end in sight to the cycle.

Would you acknowledge that arithmetical proofs and logical relations are real, even if not material? — Wayfarer

I do not acknowledge that these abstractions (or any other) are part of the ontological structure of the world. Abstraction is a mental exercise, and logic is semantics.

the whole course of the causal-temporal chain starts somewhere. It doesn't start at the Big Bang. It doesn't start at your grandfather's birth. It started at the point when there was the set of possibilities that is the YOU now reflecting back, was put into play. Without that set of gametes, whatever object 1, 2, 3.. is would not be YOU, but another set. — schopenhauer1

This is consistent with perdurantism.

It doesn't dictate a mereology (identifying parts), or force one to overmine, overreach, or undervalue the parts. Those analyses can still be applied.

You seemed to hold the the opposite, negating its "perdurance" and essence over time. — schopenhauer1

Perdurance entails an object having "temporal parts". So there's a unique Schopenhauer1 at each point in time of your existence. The individual parts are linked through a causal chain. In gross terms: Schopenhauer1@Monday causes Schopenhauer1@Tuesday which causes Schopenhauer1@Wednesday...

The temporal parts aren't strictly identical to each other because the history builds over time (thus accounting for your changes over time), but collectively- the entire temporal, causal chain precisely defines the "something".

Identity of indiscernibles applies to each object at time t: all the properties the object has at time t are essential to being that object at time t. It also applies to the entire chain: only one individual can possibly correspond to the set of all those temporal parts.

The alternative to perdurance is endurance, and this is what I've criticized, because it leaves vague as to what constitutes personal identity and what is actually persisting over time.

Thanks for the interesting article, but I don't see a direct relation to the notion of individual identity, and it persistence over time. The issues here are not valuation, but how to precisely define what constitutes a persisting identity. I lean toward hyperessentialism and perdurance, and I don't think these conflict with valuations of objects.

Your view seems consistent with "origin essentialism": "biological individuals have their biological origins essentially." This is discussed in this SEP article. I don't disagree that our origins are necessary to being who we are, I just don't think it entails a sufficiently complete concept of identity. IMO, when you start digging into it, the concept of identity gets murky.

Two polar opposite positions highlight this:
1) haeccity (the notion of a "bare identity", entailing any particular identity could have been instantiated in practically anything. Your identity could have been instantiated in the body of your parent or child, or in a goat - and possibly in a rock.
2) hyperessentialism - the notion that 100% of our properties are essential to being who we are.

Both seem defensible concepts, but most aren't willing to accept one of the extreme.

That is not going to be easy when you have the 2nd Amendment and the current gun lobby. — ssu

I don't think my proposal violates the 2nd Amendment, although I agree the NRA would oppose anything that constrains gun ownership.

you simply don't change culture by exams and policy adjustments. For many Americans, the right to own a gun is part of being an American and what the US is all about. — ssu

It would be a political struggle, and require framing the issues in ways that more people could accept it. I'd open with my earlier statement: gun ownership by those who are responsible and emotionally stable aren't the problem.

I expect that nearly 100% of gun owners believe thaty they themselves are responsible and stable. If you're responsible and stable, you have nothing to fear! An example of a "responsibility" law is a law that requires gun owners to prevent access by children. 34 states already have such a law - even Texas(!), where I live. Laws like this are low-hanging fruit - but let's not overlook chipping away at the problem by harvesting it.

Mind is an abstract immaterial process — Gnomon

I compared mental activity to running. The word "running" is an abstraction, but ontologically grounded in a material process. Mental activity may be the same. We describe the mental processes abstractly, but that doesn't preclude it being grounded in material processes.

I don't know where you got "reification", but I refer to the Mind as the Function of the Brain. Both are aspects of heterogeneous (diverse) Reality, but only the brain is a material object.

If you're claiming mental activity entails the existence of immaterial objects I'd regard that as a reification- treating an abstraction as something ontic.

The combination of the DNA code from the set of gametes. The fact that this has slight changes over time or whatnot does not invalidate this. — schopenhauer1

Agreed, but then it's just an historical fact about you.

it can't be any set of gametes, it has to be that set and not another. — schopenhauer1

Sure, but can't we say the same about all the facts in your personal history?

If you went back in time and encountered your younger self, you would consider that youngster a person distinct from yourself. If youngster stubbed his toe, only he would feel immediate pain. I account for the distinction in terms of histories: your history differs from youngster's, even though there's overlap.

"Surely, experience plays a role in identity. Even two rocks from the same molten volcano are roughly similar but are separated by a boundary when they cool. One rock may end up being smooth and one crushed up and jagged. Surely, part of the identity of that rock is the substance that the rock is composed of and arrangement of chemical compounds. When identifying if certain objects came from certain areas in archeology, you can use their unique patina "fingerprints" see if they came from the same location originally" — schopenhauer1

I suggest that you are assuming the rock has an enduring identity, as a premise, and then identify some of the things that would have to be entailed. But the fact is, it is not possible to identify some subset of its properties and history that give that rock a unique identity.

Again, it's necessary, not sufficient because of its role in its unique combination. — schopenhauer1

What exactly are you saying is necessary? Your DNA mutates throughout your life, so if your specific DNA sequence is necessary, you are not the same person your mother gave birth to.

It's also causal and spatially variant, thus accounting for the difference between twins and clones. — schopenhauer1

This reflects a subset of your history.

My position is that 100% of your history is essential to being "you" at a point of time. There is a causal relation between the "yous" of each point of time - and "you" are that cross-temporal causal sequence; you have temporal parts. This is perdurance theory of identity.

one's entire history is essential to being exactly as you are at any time. — Janus

In that case, then "Janus, at this exact day and time", would not exist if indeterminism is true and a different history had occurred.

experience plays a role in identity — schopenhauer1

The Schopenhauer1 of 1999 lacked all the experiences of the Schopenhauer1 of 2023. This is why I previously asked: "Are you the same person (same identity) today, than "you" were yesterday (or 20 years ago)?"

Strict identity does not persist over time, where strict identity fits the principle of identity of indiscernibles. So individual identities have to be defined differently than strict identity. In terms of properties, it would mean identifying which properties are essential (necessary and sufficient) to that identity.

Consider a particular rock. It has a very specific shape and molecular structure. What changes could you make and still consider it the same rock? I don't think there's an objective answer to this. One could define some subset of properties that we identify as existing over some period of time, but there's arbitrariness to any selection of the properties we might choose as "necessary and sufficient".

Are people different? We've noted that monozygotic twins start out with the same genetic makeup, so that set of DNA can't be sufficient. Is it even necessary? No, because our DNA mutates over time, so the DNA you have today is not identical to the DNA "you" had as a zygote or at birth. So you can't even say a specific set of DNA is a necessary condition.

It’s not the guns. There are more guns in the US today than ever before yet crime and murder are the lowest they’ve been since their peak in the 1990s. Clearly there is something deeper at work than the mere existence of firearms. Not only that but even if you remove firearm homicides the US still has a higher homicide rate than most developed countries — Captain Homicide

Is that bolded part true? In recent years, 70% of homicides are by firearms (per FBI stats) Even if your statement is true, the statistics suggest homicides could be reduced with more controls on access to guns.

IMO, gun ownership by those who are responsible and emotionally stable aren't the problem. So the ideal would be to reduce ownership by the irresponsible and unstable. Training and exam (analogous to getting a driver's license) might help, as well as laws that support responsible ownership.

One thing I’ll never understand about the Second Amendment argument is why there is complete deviation from the original wording, which talked of ‘well-regulated militias — Wayfarer

I agree with you in principle, but it is an unfortunate fact of life that the Supreme Court has so ruled (District of Columbia v. Heller, 552 U.S. 1229 [2008]). We can take the long view, like "pro-life" advocates did after Roe, and go a multi-decade quest to change the makeup of the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, we can only seek means to reduce the damage.

Perhaps you still haven't grasped the meaning of the BothAnd Principle. It acknowledges that our objective world is Matter-based, and that our subjective realm is Mind-based — Gnomon

The mind (i.e. mental activity) may be matter-based. Are you denying that possibility? It's not clear, but by stating this dichotomy, it seems that way.

...disjunctions of Science and Philosophy — Gnomon

Physicalist metaphysics joins the two. Earlier, you said:

The only non-physical entities I'm aware of are Mental Phenomena (e.g. ideas), which I place into the philosophical category of Meta-physical. — Gnomon

This is why I refer to "mental activities" rather then "the mind". We should be able to agree that mental activities occur. Mental activities are...activities, like running (actions are not "entities"), so I disagree with imposing an inherent reification.

Are you the same person (same identity) today, than "you" were yesterday (or 20 years ago)?
— Relativist

My answer to that would be yes, even though the body has changed, in fact changed all its cells a few times, those cells still have the same unique genotype, and the basic structure of the body is still usually recognizable all through its changes barring severe disfigurement.

. — Janus

I think you're saying that the particular sperm/ovum combination that produced you is essential to being you. That combination is your historical origin, but isn't your subsequent history also essential to being you? This history would distinguish you from your identical twin, if you had one.

Is all your history essential to being you? If not, then how do you non-arbitrarily draw the line?

Are you the same person (same identity) today, than "you" were yesterday (or 20 years ago)?

It beggars belief that he will still maintain this obvious lie in the face of all that is happening — Wayfarer

He emulates his mentor, who has developed quite a following with this sort of behavior.

What kind of person would do what Giuliani did? You ruined people's lives, and for what? To prove your loyalty to Trump? — GRWelsh

Giuliani's lawyer said this in his closing statement: “remember this is a great man.”

If I were on the jury, this would have pissed me off. No greatness was displayed by this man in his remarks about the election workers, in the lead up to the trial (where he constantly complained he was being treated unfairly, and in his failure to provide required disclosure material), nor during the trial. He did something great once, 22 years ago. That doesn't make him a great man, in perpetuity.

Rudy Giuliani hit with $148M verdict for defaming two Georgia election workers
Anyone feel sorry for Time Magazine's 2001 Person of the Year?

I'm predicting a more sanguine future for Taylor Swift.

A lot will depend upon Trump calming his rhetoric and presenting himself as the more energetic and middle of the road candidate. Stranger things have happened. — jgill

I'm not sure anything stranger actually has ever happened. Regardless, my impression is that his rhetoric is what gets him elected: "owning the libs", catering to the tendencies of his base (including racists and conspiracy theorists), and corralling members of Congress who fear losing office if they incur his wrath.

Do you think Clarence Thomas will agree with you (and piss off his wife)?

Wait...can't be tried twice for the same fact? I thought it was for the same CRIME. People have been acquitted of murder, and then charged with a civil rights violation for the same act.

This merits discussion:
Special Counsel Jack Smith Petitions the Supreme Court to rule on Trump’s Immunity Defense

The above article contains the full text of Smith's filing. The filing identifies 2 specific questions to be resolved:

1) Whether a President has absolute immunity from federal prosecution in all circumstances
2) Whether a President has immunity from federal prosecution for crimes he's been impeached for, but acquitted.

Regarding (1): if SCOTUS rules in favor of #1, this would mean there is no constraint on a President. He doesn't have to follow acts of Congress. He can spend, or not spend, allocated funds per his own whims. IOW, it establishes dictatorial powers. It ends the United States as we know it. I don't foresee SCOTUS making this ruling (although I'd be unsurprised by a favorable vote from Thomas).

Regarding (2): the implications are narrrow: it would protect only Trump from being prosecuted in the D.C. Trial for any counts that were brought in the Impeachment.

For (2), I see no benefit for Trump. The Senate acquitted Trump of one count: "Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States..."

The count references various acts that Trump committed, but an acquittal doesn't imply a judgement on those specified acts, it just implies there was a judgement that Trump did not incite violence against the Government. This is not one of the charges in the D.C. indictment. Instead, there are 3 counts of conspiracy and one 1 count of obstruction.

I'm guessing SCOTUS will also rule against this, but it could be a closer vote. If they DO vote for it, the implications are primarily for future impeachments: in many cases, it would be better to let the criminal justice system judge guilt or innocence through an impartial jury rather than by a body that is inherently biased by politics.

Does anyone have a different view?

It usually leads to threats against the speaker. — NOS4A2

I asked you to specifically discuss the morality Trump's attacks. The mere fact that free speech is a generally good thing doesn't imply all speech is morally acceptable.

I earlier pointed that there's an established correlation between Trump's verbal attacks and threats to the object of his wrath. Trump is surely aware of this because it's been noted in court filings:

"Hollen wrote that the threats increased when the gag order was stayed, and that during that time, "approximately half of the harassing and disparaging messages have been antisemitic."
--https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-gag-order-new-york-fraud-case-appeal/

Fee speech is a virtuous policy and censorship is a vice. But irresponsible, hateful speech that predictably leads to threats of violence is a vice, even if it is Constitutionally protected. You've ignored this. Either call Trump out for this irresponsible behavior, or defend it.

Did Trump attemp an self-coup?
No.
...

Would there have been a possibility for a successful self-coup?
Absolutely! But then Trump would had to have the balls to go through with it. He would have needed guys like general Michael Flynn, who would have had the ability (thanks to his background in special forces and being the director of the DIA) to pull it off. — ssu

Trump sort of made a tenuous attempt at a self-coup. He pushed Pence to do something illegal, and he wanted to appoint Jeffrey Clark as AG - because Clark was committed to lying about the election in order to get State Legislatures to illegally overturn the election. Pence didn't play along, and he backed down on Clark.

Trump has a history of treating the law as an inconvenience to be worked around (that's what "fixers" are for), rather than rules that must be followed. My guess is that his followers are fine with that, and many feel frustrated when the law stands in the way of doing what they believe is best (e.g. with their views on "closing the border" which includes violating laws regarding asylum).

The substance of what you said was pure wind. I don't care what Engeron describes. I don't care what the unjust court says. Their arguments are hokum. Of course his criticism is free speech. Their gag order is censorship. — NOS4A2

You have a lot in common with Trump: you're rebuttals consist of negative adjectives and biased judgment with no facts or logical arguments.

There is nothing to comment on. It's complete nonsense. He has a right under the constitution to say whatever he wants, up until the very high bar of "immanent lawless action". No matter how hard they try to say his criticism somehow correlated with someone else's threats, it doesn't matter, they are abridging his human rights. These threats also correlate with the degree to which they are exposed as unjust, petty tyrants and fellow travellers with Trump's political foes. If they were just, fair, and did not violate his rights, I bet they'd get less threats. — NOS4A2

Are you an expert in Constitutional Law? I'm not, and that's why I simply indicate that the courts will decide that issue. I would certainly PREFER that they consider the consequences of such incindiary speech, but I'll accept what is decided. But as I said, regardless of how the courts will decide - his behavior is immoral. If you disagree that it's immoral, then make a case (for a change. reminder: this is a philosophy forum).

Straw man. I did not say her desires for more blacks and more women in the Democratic party entails racism, though it does, and for the same reason desiring more men and whites is racist. She was saying the administration is "too male, too pale, and too stale" which is both racist and sexist. — NOS4A2

A video of her chanting "too male, too pale, and too stale" doesn't entail (i.e. logically imply) that she's racist. Neither does a desire for more people like her serving in public office. Whether or not someone is truly racist is usually difficult to know, because we can't peek into their heads to understand what they actually believe and what their motivations are. Only when there's a long term pattern of behavior can we discern that, like members of the KKK. I think it's debatable as to whether or not Trump is racist for that same reason, and there's a boatload more questionable comments and actions he's responsible for over the years.

Your use of the word “attack” indicates your belief that his criticism is somehow aggressive and violent. — NOS4A2

You're groping for something to complain about, since you ignored the substance of what I said. The label "attack" applies to many negative statements a person might make against another. Engeron described it that way: “Personal attacks on members of my court staff are unacceptable, inappropriate and I will not tolerate them in any circumstances.” Have his lawyers objected to that term? My impression is that they're simply arguing that his attacks are protected free speech.

But this specious rhetoric only serves to disguise the truth, namely, that his criticism is non-violent

Has anyone said Trump's "criticism" is violent? I haven't. But I said that it is PREDICTABLY likely to result in violent threats, and Trump is clearly aware:

"A top court security official wrote in an affidavit that transcriptions of threats to Greenfield and Engoron produced since Trump's original Oct. 3 social media post filled 275 single-spaced pages. Charles Hollen, an official in the Department of Public Safety, said the threats included calls to Greenfield's personal phone and messages to her personal email account.

"Hollen wrote that the threats increased when the gag order was stayed, and that during that time, "approximately half of the harassing and disparaging messages have been antisemitic."
--https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-gag-order-new-york-fraud-case-appeal/

As I've said, the courts will have to sort out the Constitutional issues. Perhaps they'll decide Trump has the constitutional right to post inflammatory lies about people. But that has no bearing on the immorality of what he's doing. Why don't you comment on that?

And sexist, apparently. — NOS4A2

Non-sequitur. James has been pushing for more blacks and more women in the Democratic party. Such a desire does not entail sexism. Consider: https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-hopes-to-add-black-lawmakers-to-house-11603892455

As usual, it’s Trump’s fault they are getting threats. It has nothing to do with their own behavior. — NOS4A2

Get real. No one's claiming the people making threats are innocent. But it's firmly established that there are people like this who follow Trump. Threats to the people he disparages are inevitable, and Trump surely knows that - so it's irresponsible to inflame them - irrespective of the legality (that's for courts to decide). Consider that Trump could add a disclaimer to every one of his attacks, reminding everyone not to take actions or make threats. Or he could simply remind all his followers to remain law abiding. Instead he's passive, which leads one to suspect he's fine with whatever happens. Reminds me of his 1/6 tweet: "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long".

"But that’s just the bullshit excuse they use to cover for their political desire to censor the one man criticizing their malfeasances"
The only thing Engeron "censored" was Trump's attacks on his law clerk. How does that hurt him politically? Do his political ambitions depend on maximizing animosity toward anyone he chooses to denigrate?

I think some of those consequences are on the table: mandated appearances, questioning by judge, and jail time - just like violating any court order. But there is this 1st Amendment issue

Trump has posted degrading lies about many people over the years that led to threats by some of his devoted deranged followers. This is protected free speech (I presume). But now he's in a civil court, and this apparently gives the judge some discretion to restrict that speech.

Supporters of maximal free speech (like the ACLU) defend Trump's right to disparage people, irrespective of any consequences that follow from that disparagement, and deny that involvement in a court proceeding makes any difference.

The gag order in the criminal court has different circumstances. When someone's indicted, they aren't entitled to all freedoms: they're often jailed pending trial, but usually offered the opportunity to post bail to stay out of lockup. But in this case, there can be conditions of release. I think this gives a judge in a criminal case broader discretion. Nevertheless, the ACLU still insists 1st Amendment rights "trump" judge's discretion.

It's tempting to criticize the ACLU for caring more about free speech than the risks posed to the people Trump is disparaging. But they are just defending a principle of maximal, unrestricted free speech. So it's a fair Constitutional question (IMO). But setting aside this Constitutional technicality, I think there's something inherently wrong with allowing people to be endangered by false and inflammatory public language.

I'm interested in hearing your assessment of what I just wrote, since you're a lawyer.

That is a curtailment of free speech — AmadeusD

The broad legal issue is: are any judicial gag orders constitutional? Trump isn't special.

Following up on what I said in the prior post, Trump's attorneys are appealing the gag order to the next level. They say:

""Without expedited review, [the defendants] will continue to suffer irreparable injury daily"
(https://news.yahoo.com/trump-seeks-urgent-review-gag-162355358.html)

Consider what this means: Trump is "injured" by being restricted from making false statements attacking the judge's clerk, judge's wife, and others. This is his forte, and his best path to getting elected, but I wish his supporters could make this connection.