As in has it been measured to do so? No, like I said, you can't transfer between frames of reference by the speed of light. But you can keep going faster and faster and watch the distance between events shrink. "Vanish" here is as it's used in mathematics and physics, e.g. "the wavefunction if the atom must vanish infinitely far from the nucleus." — Kenosha Kid
That's what you think. It could be just as well that the wavefunction is made out of non-local stuff and as such, space itself could be that stuff. What is more non-local than space? Nothing. — Cartuna
There's no physical reference frame in which the photon is at rest, but if you take the limit of the distance and time between events as velocity tends toward the speed of light for a frame parallel to the photon's trajectory, that distance and time period vanish. It ends up simply being a transfer of electromagnetic energy from one system to another. Nothing empirical can be said about a photon's transit. — Kenosha Kid
I'm quite sympathetic to the idea that, say, photons don't exist in space-time between their creation and destruction. Makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not sure how it would work for massive particles... — Kenosha Kid
In term of 'expressing an opinion' the model we've developed to do this is based on reactions to 'fear'. On top of that I am saying that 'anger'/'annoyance' with problems/questions we play with is how we come to do philosophy - to explore knowledge and our existence. — I like sushi
So what, then, is change in itself? Well, it seems to me that a good place to start is to think about how we detect it (even though it is an egregious mistake to confuse one's detection of something with the thing itself). — Bartricks
Why stop there? All the other millions of humans in severe physical and mental pain each day (countless varieties and durations there, each horrific in its own way ), are worth your, mine and the daily happy time quota of millions of others? — RAW
A T-sentence can be applied to any statement, and so is more general than correspondence. It has the advantage of being undeniable. Correspondence comes with its own difficulties. SO I'll go with T-sentences. — Banno
I took it as necessarily vague. There's a limit to the precision a concept that addresses the everything of everything can reasonably achieve. Basically, this is some way because that is some way.It's not that it's wrong so much as that it is so very hard to be clear as to what correspondence consists in. — Banno
A fact is a statement that is true.
It is also the state of affairs set out by a true statement. — Banno
I guarantee I'm not who you had in mind. I get the feeling that Kant was good at coming up with ideas people can chew on without ever really tasting. It seems like Russell was suggesting that perhaps it's time to spit out the gum and get onto something that can be right or wrong or otherwise progressed. We gave it a hundred years; the morality bit was good, but time to move on. At times I wonder how much was window dressing just so the church can feel like he wasn't a threat.So, I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable in Kant, like Mww, can help me out here (though of course anyone else is free to help) with the question in the title. — Amalac
Isn't smoking a doing something? We are asking people to refrain from unvaccinating? At some point the push forward just creates more push back. Vaccination seems to fall along some political lines. The virus spreads really fast now with the delta variant. Technically, there's two ways to increase the percent population of the vaccinated.I use the example of smoking, and asked several questions related to this example, which you’ve repeatedly ignored— I assume now on purpose. But it’s a relevant one, as are the facts of the case at hand. — Xtrix
Sure, when you have the luxury which often up to monster. Some dangers are zerosum, bordering on lose-lose (pyrrhic), where it takes a monster to defeat a monster. Last resort, yeah; but not unthinkable. — 180 Proof
There are no leftists in mainstream American politics. There are just different varieties of right-wing authoritarianism. It's what makes American Republicans, Democrats, and Liberals so similar. — baker
I'm not just talking about covid and vax. I'm talking about the way the right treats the left when the right is in charge. What goes around, comes around. Try a little compassion, empathy, consideration, respect. Otherwise you end up creating people like me: not really the touchy-feely lib. — James Riley
If we disagree and you are wrong –> demonstrably wrong –> demonstrably dangerously wrong, then is it "fascist" to defend myself, with violence if needs be, against being subjected to the imminent danger/s which you (e.g. anti-vaxxers) advocate or present? — 180 Proof
There is your extreme again, assuming devaluation is the assessment of no value. Just because I think your widget isn't worth what you are asking for it, doesn't mean I think it's worthless. — James Riley
I don't even know what that meant in the context of our discussion. — James Riley
Suppose hypothetically I place a low value on a human and then fail to realize when they produce a good idea. It's only to my detriment.Go ahead and judge. It's human. Value, it's human. — James Riley
Notice your use of the word "every", "everyone". Take it down a notch. That is extreme. If you see the world in such extremes, it is no wonder you can't appreciate the nuance of relative value. — James Riley
Nah, I don't judge you either.They can dish it out but they can't take it. This kind of attitude, of mine, expressed here aggressively, is then used by them as they cry to mommy, the reasonable mediator (you?) about how bad people like me are. Don't fall for it. They'll be right back to slinging shit and being bully's once they get their way. — James Riley
Intuitively, dehumanization seems like the extreme result of devaluation. I'm sure you have a reasonable threshold, but I don't see them as different types of activities.However, you have entirely missed my distinction between devaluation and dehumanization when you say "so I don't mind killing them." — James Riley
I disagree with them, but I don't see a need to devalue them. I need people that disagree with me in order to improve my ideas. A world where everyone agrees would eliminate this activity.I do know of an example and I lead with it: Trumpettes/Republicans. — James Riley
Every human organization, endeavor, or product will be subject to human error. If I devalue everyone subject to error, then I devalue myself.If you want a non-military example of the benefit of devaluing a group of people, see every party in every election. — James Riley
Do you know of an example that isn't in the context of a military operation? Your analysis is correct; I'm making the assumption that devaluing groups is inherently a bad decision. The exception of "so I don't mind killing them" doesn't carry the same weight with a civilian. I'm sure I'm making a dogmatic error somewhere, but I haven't located an example where devaluing a group of people was the solution.In fact, I was not saying you are wrong, only that your beliefs about my position were unduly influenced by your assumption that devaluation is inherently bad or only used for bad (and should thus be avoided). I was not saying it was bad or good; only that it is not inherently bad. — James Riley
If it prevents one from becoming a Nazi then maybe it's a worthwhile consideration.
— Cheshire
It worked wonders for Chamberlain. :roll: — Xtrix
The dynamic Xtrix created that influenced your interpretation of my position. When he devalued the group of people that might caution against thinking like a nazi; suddenly the thoughts of the person that holds a cautionary principle is worthy only of dismissal or easily attributed absurdist views.What am I missing? — James Riley
Do you not understand what I'm saying here? You are demonstrating the flaw of assigning thoughts to a person based on your perception of the group of people you have in mind. And doing so inaccurately.I don't recall saying this or suggesting it; which proves my point better than my argument.
— Cheshire
The fact you don't say or suggest something proves a point better than argument? Hmmm. I'll have to take that one under advisement. — James Riley
Fair enough.I've got not truck with that. I just apply it differently. — James Riley
To paraphrase one wag: "When Michelle Obama says 'When they go low, we go high' I'm thinking 'How about middle?'" — James Riley
I don't recall saying this or suggesting it; which proves my point better than my argument.You might say that if it somehow went away, then we would be all kumbha ya. — James Riley
A person unwilling to devalue the worst amongst us in principle, will never devalue the innocent in practice. In practice is where it matters and in principle we create the boundaries that prevent falling into the same patterns with different names.I'm not asking about me. I'm asking about the prospective Nazi. — James Riley
In principle it sets one further apart from Nazism.How is *not* devaluing Nazis going to prevent one from becoming a Nazi? — James Riley
Considering things in the context of active military engagement presupposes quite a bit. I'm not sure it's suited for broad application; unless normalizing the state of war is desirable.So were the Allies allied against the Nazis. — James Riley
See the tool example. Everything doesn't have to be either/or. There are gradients in life. But the left, in general does not stand up on their hind legs when doing so might keep us all from war. They let the right push them around and use those methods until war becomes necessary. Then they get their asses up off the couch, kick some ass, and go back to their lives. Maybe if they stood up a little sooner, engaged in a little push-back, speak a little of the right's language, then we would not end up in a war. So yeah, fuck Trump and his acolytes. I hope the DOJ burns them down. — James Riley
If it prevents one from becoming a Nazi then maybe it's a worthwhile consideration. The Nazis were firm believers in your position; not mine.Devaluing the Nazis is a bad thing, according to new agey, pseudo-Buddhistic bullshit. — Xtrix
Devaluing groups in the context of war is a good strategy for war. Do we want to create a society that operates on the rules of war?Individuals often use dehumanization to harden their hearts and make killing easier. A seasoned soldier, on the other hand, doesn't need to dehumanize to kill. The killing is a business based upon devaluation. Killing Nazis was business and business was good. — James Riley
I still argue that it is better isolate the ideas from the people. I don't think we lose anything from failing to make additional assumptions of worth. But, maybe I'm still idealistic in my non-judgement of people; based on my desire not to be judged by those who don't know me. Or a victim of the egos desire to increase its own value based on breaking down others. The narcissistic trap so many would be intellectuals fall into to.They can be, but when they throw their lot in with X, they have branded themselves with a group and with no aid from me. — James Riley