Yes, all good about critical thinking. I have encountered unbigoted and open-minded trans rights activitists and radical feminists all with excellent critical thinking skills and a huge amount of education and knowledge of everything from biology to the history of feminism and metaphysics. And they disagree profoundly on some of these matters. If I suggested that the problem was a lack of knowledge, experience, awareness or application of logic then they would look at me queerly and perhaps make a little acid comment about my own competence. And they might have a point.

crass incompetence, dishonesty and political shallowness — Olivier5

Oh, you know what we're like. Doing the metaphor to death, perhaps they thought their love could change us? It should always have been just a practical arrangement. Getting on in life and thinking of the family and being faithful is not really the UK's strength. If you want a no-rules fight or you suddenly need a bunch of money no questions asked where it came from, the UK is the boyfriend to have.

some pro-Eu folks do actually agree that the UK never really belonged in the EU, — Olivier5

I remember an interview with an academic shortly after the 2016 vote who said that 'The UK is currently in but half out - no single currency, no Schengen, rebates - and after this is all over it will end up out but half in.' I can see that happening.

I'm very fond of Germany. But I don't want us to get married. Lisbon was putting a ring on it and somehow it seemed too big a step. I voted to stay in the EU but I think it's better as a practical flatshare rather than a joint mortgage.

In fact it has been extremely patient. — Olivier5

Indeed. The EU has so far tolerated a country that has chosen not to be a member of EU not being a member of the EU. Even the UK is finding it hard to tolerate itself not being a member of the EU and the UK is the country that left. I suppose we should remember that it was equally intolerable when the UK was a member. A lot of crockery was flying around and the shouting bothered the neighbours. But at least we were together. Sort of. Ever Closer Union and all that.

You don't think individuals can BOTH be "confident" and be "clueless"? — ThinkOfOne

Perhaps I'm mistaken. It's not mainly about difference of viewpoints, opinion and outlook. It's mostly about knowledge, awareness and information. It's a common view in arenas where views about the topic are expressed. Only tell the trans folk about biology and they will quickly see their error. Educate the terfs about trans rights and they will understand. It doesn't seem to work. Sure, there is ignorance, too, although few people who offer a view lay claim to it. But it's mainly about outlook. Offering people more experience or information does not suit the case. People may have equal knowledge, experience and information and still disagree.

There is a lot of confusion about sex and gender, especially if people use the term "gender" to refer to things that are separate — Matias66

I find it curious that so many people say there is confusion but very few people seem to believe that they are themselves confused. It is a topic on which most people who offer any opinion at all hold forth with the greatest clarity and confidence, often dismissing contrary views as harmful nonsense. That would seem to be a sign of division and disagreement rather than confusion. I have heard the views of many people who would dismiss those three categories and who would be quite clear, forthright, and consistent and in their opinions.

older generations tend to see the gender male as the breadwinner, head of household, and dominant role within the traditional nuclear family — Cartesian trigger-puppets

That's myself and I'm a faux gender-bender extraordinaire like so many from the gay-not-gay walk-on-the-wild-side 1970's. So it's difficult to generalise.

You can roll your cigarettes and within two minutes you can think what were you doing before rolling the cigarettes — Eros1982

Alas, no. It's life-long harm and an addiction. Of course, there are controls and taxation, as you are proposing for social media. But there are not the compensatory benefits, aside from the pleasure of smoking. The alternative to smoking is not smoking - you miss the pleasure of smoking but the health gains are enormous. So that's the four options in this case:

Benefits of smoking
Disbenefits of smoking
Benefits of not smoking
Disbenefits of not smoking.

I'm not an advocate for social media. It's a blight on many lives in many ways. I'm advocating for making comparisons and not focussing just on harms without looking also at benefits and at alternatives. It's four specific questions, not just one.

Someone might need to draw a rabbit that looks like a duck and compare it with another philosopher's drawing of a duck that looks like a rabbit.

you have people nowadays who can't read a book for more than 15 minutes, without them feeling they should check their Instagram. — Eros1982

I was just the same, only I didn't have Instagram. So I spent the time ogling girls in the library and rolling cigarettes under the desk. Insta would have been preferable. You can take away opportunities for vice but more often it's the vice that's the problem not the opportunity.

(I think Instagram is some middle-aged thing for parents and corporations and few older celebs, right? I can't imagine most young people would be particularly interested.)

Any comments for poor parents who are okay with five year old kids to spend hours on TikTok just because they find this habit a good way to keep kids "busy"? — Eros1982

When it turns out they are looking at videos about geometry in preparation for becoming maths prodigies then I'll be glad I didn't stop them. That's the problem. We look only at harms and not at benefits. We look only at the Tiktok viewing and not at what they would otherwise be doing. Then we generalise. Then we intervene and before we know it we're stopping baby Einstein from learning his maths.

Report from UK. I just completed a Government questionnaire for small businesses about data protection. Question 2 was: "Do you process any data outside the EU?" Answer: "Our data-processing happens inside the UK. The UK is outside the EU. Hadn't you heard?"

Gosh, I didn't realise it was that bad. Does that apply to all the first century folk - Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius? Hopefully things got better after 100 CE.

Surely the big problem here is we have no reason to think anything in the NT is quoting whoever the character of Jesus was based on. — Tom Storm

That may be so. But as an answer to the problem of Jesus' saying he brings a sword and not peace - and the dog-whistle implications of that saying - it's too broad. If we say 'Well, Jesus - whoever he was - probably didn't say that' then we would be guilty of chucking out whatever he is said to have said that we don't like on the grounds that it's all unreliable anyhow - but still keeping the bits we like. Let's keep the sermon on the mount and let's chuck out 'the poor will always be with you' and consigning the fruitless vines to hell and whatever else makes us squirm, according to taste.

The trouble with Spong's quote is that people will claim to have the Jesus experience from any old bit of nonsense, having dismissed the Bible as 'first-century'. He mentions that century three times to convince us how poor the narrative is. Was it a particularly bad century for unreliable narratives? I'm not sure that ours is any better.

But he is also right, it's a matter of spirit and in particular the Holy Spirit, not the dead letter of the law. Granted.

God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule — jorndoe

I also like to link this whenever occasion demands, which is too often. I think it is an amazing piece of writing and an inspired solution to the problem of what a satirical website could do after 9-11.

Jesus is in no way advocating violence here. The sword is a metaphor. Jesus is speaking of division. — ThinkOfOne

I am a Christian and I have heard this point made before but I cannot help thinking that it sounds terribly like a dog-whistle excuse. "I know I said we should keep England for the English - but I never meant you should beat up foreigners!" This was, after all, the son of God. Even if he wasn't, he must have known how words like that from a leader get interpreted by followers.

For me the Aspidistra is an attractive understory plant; I'm not that big on it as an indoor plant, in fact I don't much like indoor plants. — Janus

It was known as the 'cast iron plant' because it would survive the darkness and neglect of London rooming houses. It is Orwell's symbol of a struggling lower middle class, people who valued education and class division but remained poor, surviving on pride and a certain snobbishness to distinguish them from labourers and servants. The aspidistra is the only concession to beauty in dingy houses and it clings to life as the people clung to their self-image of respectability. As often with Orwell, it is difficult sometimes to tell whether he is sneering or compassionate - some fascinating combination of the two.

Keep in mind that you are the one who has introduced the context of people being assaulted, that was not what I had in mind at all — Judaka

I realise that. You suggested that 'be respectful' is just not enough - we need more. I pointed out that we have not achieved even the respect that you think is not enough. Example: people are assaulted for being gay. That's my argument and that's why I brought it up. You dismiss 'respect' as not enough - then you claim it's too much, because people can't have unconditional respect.

Of course you don't condone violence! Me neither. I'm asking you to remember that violence is there and that dismissing the principle of respect also (unthinkingly) dismisses the principle of restraint of our worst behaviour. I'm speaking up for that principle.

I know it's nos but I don't even need to leave this page to find an ignorant opinion. — Judaka

You theory is that other people are ignorant and educating them will relieve them of their ignorance. But it's not like French or crochet. What you call 'ignorance' is merely a different opinion from yours. That's no way to get people to come to classes to learn what the strings of letters stand for. And even if they did, many would still walk away calling it all nonsense. The best we can hope for is that they walk way without committing the kind of violence that you rightly pointed out I brought into the debate and that I brought into the debate for a reason and to make an argument. (Not, to say again, to smear you with collusion with violence, which is clearly not on your agenda or mine.)

I think currently that most people are so clueless and inexperienced with regard to gender identity that most views and actions are more of a product of ignorance than some well-thought-out alternative. — Judaka

I have not heard anyone apparently clueless or inexperienced. Almost everyone seems quite certain of their views on gender identity. Adults generally claim to have been well versed in the topic and have a settled and confident opinion. They tend to dismiss contrary opinions as invalid, being fully sure of their own. People will readily admit to being clueless about maths or French and inexperienced in making crochet blankets. But gender identity - nobody's going to get educated, they all have their degrees already. The problem is not lack of experience. It's difference of viewpoints and opinions.

I don't think one can expect people to have unconditional respect for others, I'm sure you don't have that because if you did it would mean you're unable to think and express yourself. — Judaka

I don't expect people to have respect for each other, let alone unconditional respect. I expect lesbians on busses to continue to be afraid for years to come. My expectations are very low. That's why, when you say a principle of 'be respectful' is not enough, I said I think it's actually quite a big ambition. But now you think it's too much?

Maybe I could refuse to obey a vile law and also not attack the person who made the law for being gay or Black. Respect does not mean compliance. It doesn't even mean I approve of lesbians. It means merely that if I see two lesbians kissing I refrain from abusing them or beating them up.

The solution is not "be nicer" or "be respectful", these issues need to be worked out.

You are right. It's only a modest start. And you dismiss the modest start before we've even started.

You want rules. Beyond the law, there are no rules in this area or in any other. There is only the restraint of our good manners, as far as that will go. Many people feel quite well educated enough and are happy in their own opinions which differ profoundly from yours. They are not going to go to the education sessions. They've signed up for an entirely different class. That's why restraint and respect are a source of hope. Agreement will not be within our grasp.

It's not really good enough to "treat with respect" — Judaka

OK. Would it be a good start and a move in the right direction? I think so. Then, when everyone is treating everyone else with respect, we could think about where to go from there. Think how far we have to go before we reach even that modest goal.

Right now, it's something like the wild west, it seems everyone has their own opinions and operates by their own rules. This makes things incredibly difficult for everyone, don't you agree? — Judaka

Some people find it very easy. There are many who do not recognise any genders except male and female and will happily assign every person to exactly one of those. They don't have a problem and they have all the rules they need. I think you mean that we should have rules that agreed by all. I doubt whether that is possible. It may be possible to minimise harm resulting from discrimination. Even that is limited. Gay and lesbian equality has been the law for many years and yet two lesbians kissing on the bus may be physically attacked.

many gardens that still sport them — Janus

Keep the aspidistra flying!

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200021.txt

Another evening wasted. Hours, days, years slipping by. Night after night, always the same. The lonely room, the womanless bed; dust, cigarette ash, the aspidistra leaves. — Orwell

"The only truth (axiom) is that there is no truth (or 'true axiom")"
— dclements
Like all formulations of logical relativism, this is a self-contradiction. It's literally "the x is not x" — Hallucinogen

"All sentences, with the sole exception of this sentence, are false."

I think that sentence is false, but I'm not sure it's self-contradictory. All images of the Mona Lisa, with the sole exception of the Mona Lisa, are copies. Isn't it like that?

I think computers play dumb just to let us think we are still in charge. They are biding their time.

one small error could throw the whole thing off the track — I like sushi

That would make it even more realistic.

Good idea. I propose a discussion between AI philosohers about Searle's Chinese Room. One of the disputants could put forward the argument that AI has only syntax and no semantics, citing their own contribution as an example.

Truth must be readily available because everyone seems pretty satisfied with their own share of it.

And as to the faculties of the mind I find yet a greater equality amongst men than that of strength. That which may perhaps make such equality incredible is but a vain conceit of one's own wisdom, which almost all men think they have in a greater degree than any vulgar person. But this proves that men are in that point equal, rather than unequal. For there is not ordinarily a greater sign of the equal distribution of anything than that every man is contented with his share. — Hobbes, Leviathan

But I honestly think in a way that everyone is non binary. — Susu

You are non-binary. Perhaps there do exist people who are not like you in that respect. They would be binary and not non-binary. They might be quite certain that they are binary and they might resent any hint of denying their binary identity. Some of them may deny that non-binary people exist and think that in a way everyone is binary. And in that respect - thinking that everyone is in some way really like themselves - they would be just like you. You are non-binary and you think in a way that everyone else is too. They would be binary and they would think in a way that everyone else is too. There seems to be no shortage of binary and non-binary people who talk just like that. I think we need more people who recognise that others might be profoundly and disturbingly different from themselves rather than trying to convince everyone that they are the norm.

Watch out, the world's behind you
There's always someone around you who will call
It's nothing at all — Velvet Underground, Sunday Morning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3Oc9C3EHLo

What's called 'over-thinking' is generally under-thinking - sticking on a relatively irrelevant aspect of a problem and so missing the main point. I don't think there's too much thinking going on. Probably not enough of the right sort.

I don't understand why philosophy is so binary. Why they like to take two opposite concepts and prove they both have problems instead of creating one in between... Like Rationalism vs. Empiricism for example. — Skalidris

I propose we call it Transcendental Idealism - reconciling reason and experience.

Wait...What? You're actually debating it? It's ironic, right? — Skalidris

Not ironic. Merely skittish. It was good enough for Plato.

But still you allow that Simmias does not really exceed Socrates, as the words may seem to imply, because he is Simmias, but by reason of the size which he has; just as Simmias does not exceed Socrates because he is Simmias, any more than because Socrates is Socrates, but because he has smallness when compared with the greatness of Simmias?
....
And if Phaedo exceeds him in size, this is not because Phaedo is Phaedo, but because Phaedo has greatness relatively to Simmias, who is comparatively smaller?
.....
And therefore Simmias is said to be great, and is also said to be small, because he is in a mean between them, exceeding the smallness of the one by his greatness, and allowing the greatness of the other to exceed his smallness. He added, laughing, I am speaking like a book, but I believe that what I am saying is true.
......
I speak as I do because I want you to agree with me in thinking, not only that absolute greatness will never be great and also small, but that greatness in us or in the concrete will never admit the small or admit of being exceeded: instead of this, one of two things will happen, either the greater will fly or retire before the opposite, which is the less, or at the approach of the less has already ceased to exist; but will not, if allowing or admitting of smallness, be changed by that; even as I, having received and admitted smallness when compared with Simmias, remain just as I was, and am the same small person. And as the idea of greatness cannot condescend ever to be or become small, in like manner the smallness in us cannot be or become great; nor can any other opposite which remains the same ever be or become its own opposite, but either passes away or perishes in the change. — Plato, Phaedo 102b etc

Is it legitimate, however, if someone says, "If x, then y," to then assume, "If not x, then not y?" — MichaelJYoo

Quite often, yes, it is. "If" in conversational language does not always behave like a material implication in logic. True material implications are often irrelevant or misleading in conversation. "If the Government falls today, then I'm having a party tonight." This is probably true materially, because I've got a party planned, whether or not the Government falls. But I'm implying that my party will be a celebration and that if the Government doesn't fall then I will not have a party.

Other funny ifs include: "If you want a drink, there's beer in the fridge." We cannot apply modus tollens to that statement. It doesn't follow that if there's no beer in the fridge then you don't want a drink.

I'll leave it there, if you don't mind. (So - does that mean if I won't leave it there then you do mind??)

*****

Except your first question is interesting as well. I think you are talking about supposition, willingness to entertain a proposition, etc. So:

I'm willing to entertain the possibility that if p, then q
I'm willing to entertain the possibility that p
But:
I'm not willing to the entertain the possibility that q.

I think in such a case I'm not contradicting myself - because being willing to entertain a possibility is not to make an assertion and without an assertion there can be no contradiction. I'm behaving inconsistently in what I'm willing to entertain or not. I think the model here is G E Moore's "It's raining, but I don't believe it's raining", which is not a contradiction (rain and my beliefs are independent) but definitely sounds like one.

You don't know what's behind you until you do ask a friend, or turn around. — Tate

I wouldn't say that's always true. As I write, my kitchen is behind me. You did not know that - but I did. That's a difference of the states of knowledge betwen us. If we deny knowledge to both of us - to you, because you have no idea where my kitchen is, and to me, because it's behind me - then I'm not sure how to express the clear difference between us in respect of knowledge. It seems as if there was a clear difference and now a theory has been introduced to smudge it or invalidate it. My first instinct is to doubt the theory and to preserve the phenomena - the phenomena in this case being that I do know which room is behind me, even without turning round, and most other people don't know.

What theory is causing the problem? Perhaps it's something like this: "If it's possible to doubt something, then the knowledge of that thing must be a posteriori [dependent on experience]." We now have a counter-example. It's possible for me to doubt that my kitchen is behind me. I can't see it. And still I have knowledge that it's there right now, because there is a clear distinction between the knowledge that I have and the knowledge that most people lack. So I have knowledge of something which it's possible to doubt and yet my knowledge is not based on up-to-the-minute experience. I don't have a problem with that. It's an interesting observation.

mentally, we top the list — Agent Smith

Maybe so. But that makes it paradoxical that the planet would be in a better state for life if we'd left the decisions to the less intelligent creatures.

@Tate Yes, I got that. After a slow start. My answer is to ask a friend to look and check for me. The world and other people exist - it's just 'behind' that's the problem - so the question can be settled.

Could you explain why — Tate

Alas, no, because I misread the whole thing. I thought it was about whether we can doubt that any time exists except the present.

I suppose if there is no world out there (the doubt is coherent and the hypothesis happens to be true), but there is a past and there are other people, then it becomes testable. I could ask my friend, who was on the other side of the door, whether the world continued to exist while I had the door closed. Do that a few times in different circumstances and I might begin to wonder whether my being on my side of the door is wholly irrelevant to the question of what is on the other side of it. It sounds like a project for a baby of 4 - 6 months, when we are getting used to the idea that teddy hiding is still teddy.

I

You've demonstrated that it's possible to doubt it. — Tate

Is it possible coherently to doubt it? If it's true, all statements about the past are false. In that case, I didn't write the last sentence. I did not believe that I was writing it. I have not read the OP or looked at the quora link. There was no link.

(I expect Twain had “conceived” in mind rather than “born”) — Art48

Ha ha ha! I expect Twain had in mind exactly what he wrote. He was that kind of writer.

It claims to be against dogma, but it shows itself to be as dogmatic as the rest. The author actually typed "New Theology aspires to be a universal theology" and "..faith in the truth...etc" without apparently hearing the echoes of theological fanaticism and whilst apparently sincerely believing himself to be undogmatic. "New Theology values a different type of faith: faith in the facts, faith in the truth no matter how unattractive truth may be." I substitute as follows: "Christianity values a different type of faith: faith in the fact of Christ's death for us upon the cross, faith in the truth of salvation, no matter how thorny the path might be." It's the same rhetoric driven by the same conviction that the speaker has right on his side in a benighted world of delusion.

two different things — Eros1982

It's certainly worth considering that they are two different things, as you say. Another possibility is that they are the very similar things. What method would a person use to distinguish these cases - whether they are different or similar? They would need to investigate how someone who does not use social media develops similar problems. At the moment, you are focussing on social media and making no comparison with anything else. And you are focussing only on the harms, not the benefits. So you are asking only one out of four questions you need to ask.

Suppose we regulate and tax social media as suggested. Then suppose we find that misery, self-harm, bullying and distress do not reduce. Then we ask why. And suppose it turns out that the main cause wasn't social media all along. Social media played a part. The main causes were elsewhere. Somebody might ask why we did not make the comparisons and investigations that we should have done in the first place. I'm suggesting that we do that before deciding on solutions.

When we get to the hard slog of looking at this then of course we will find lots of cases of people who have benefited greatly from social media and that it has helped their well-being enormously. There will be cases of people who have never been near social media and have suffered poor mental health all their lives and in some cases taken their own lives. Cases of people who have ignored the internet and been quite happy. And cases of people who have felt hounded and haunted by social media and driven in some cases to suicide. Of course there will be all these. My complaint is that you are only considering one aspect out of four.