Once the conflict started it was too late. — Manuel

"Too late"? What a blase dismissal of what is purportedly the war aim of Russia. Russia could certainly have saved itself a lot of grief.

Zelensky says different things depending on which camera is on him: Western, Russian, etc. — Manuel

So I guess negotiation with such a proven serial liar is impossible?

As for NATO launching a conventional war, this came out yesterday: https://www.yahoo.com/news/petraeus-predicts-us-lead-nato-190325472.html — Manuel

This hypothetical is in response to a Russian nuclear strike. By that point, the calculus changes dramatically.

But it's not speculation, NATO is the cause of the war, and should be recognized. — Manuel

How do facts bear this out?

Ukraine offered neutrality multiple times before and during the conflict, Putin was unmoved.

NATO offers no conceivable threat to Russia. Russian military doctrine permits a nuclear first strike in the case of an incursion into Russia's borders. This constitutes an ironclad security guarantee for Russia. AFAICT even Russian apologists don't take seriously the idea that NATO could ever launch a conventional war into Russia's borders.

Far more likely, Russia considers Ukraine at best a proper satellite of imperial Russia. Even the suggestion that Ukraine join NATO challenges this status and is intolerable.

would argue that every time you use the word ‘greed’ to describe another you are failing to see how they legitimately justify their actions based on their perspective and personal history. — Joshs

There are few who view themselves as explicitly immoral. There is always a way to rationalize. But this fact does not impact the legitimacy of our own judgements of them.

My point is that intellect and morality are not intrinsically linked. — Deus

It's worse. Interject is an amplifier of evil.

I define evil as seeking ones own benefit at the expense of others. Evil is a constant, but Intellect amplifies it's power. Worse, with technological sharing it enables the evil of the led intelligent. The ingenuity of the gun enables the killer to murder in mass. The ingenuity of nuclear weapons enables a wounded narcissist like Putin to murder a country or the planet.

I’d much rather find voluntary means of coordination. — NOS4A2

Democracy is the only such means.

Democracy is the natural state of social organization. Leaders emerge, but they lead by the consent of the led. If they lose that consent, they are removed, because the led outnumber them. Simple.

It is only when populations increase to an unnatural extent, due to the invention of agriculture, that tyranny becomes possible. While the led still outnumber, they now need organization to effectively resist. This becomes difficult with increasing numbers and a determined ruling elite which suppresses such organization.

Democracy is the institutionalization of the original, natural state of affairs, and is the only means of voluntary organization of large numbers. It's sole function is too maintain voluntary rule by consent, by providing an institutionalized organization the masses would otherwise lack. It is only ever partial, and it is always under attack, always threatens to devolve into minority rule, as we are observing across the world now. But it's all we've got.

] Except their point is not "the purpose of suffering is to avoid suffering", rather "the purpose of suffering is to avoid the things which causes suffering".

Yet there's a vicious circularity here, in that suffering is what we seek to avoid, and yet what we seek to avoid is suffering. — Banno

Where is the vicious circularity? You just rephrased the same thing

Such a system doesn’t occur naturally — NOS4A2

If you look at the earliest examples of statehood, these forms "occur naturally" as seen by their repeated emergence and are at the same time imposed, and are deeply exploitive.

The problem with that definition is that by that ,we cannot say about anything at all that is "real".Since every procedure that allows us know/think/consider something as "real" is made via our minds.So nothing at all is actually mind independent. — dimosthenis9

A better definition is "existence independent of thoughts about it".

I see only one sense of exist. The lump of granite exists, or it does not. The deity exists, or it does not. The past exists, or it does not.

And the relevance of your self quote, afaict, does not exist.

Hence, the thought of the rock of yesterday is a thought just as real as the thought of this rock today, but the existence of either rock is not given by mere thoughts about it. — Mww

Yes this is obvious.

It is therefore unjustifiable to say the same thing about those by which the determinations of each depends on non-congruent modes. — Mww

I don't really know what you are going on about. And it is frankly not interesting to me. I don't want to quibble about grammar. My question is, do the past and future exist? My phrasing in the op was an attempt to eliminate "define exist" responses. This was a blunder on my part.

he saying is not the thinking, but merely presupposes thinking for its antecedent, and represents thinking as its consequent — Mww

More quibbling. My point is, the reality of thought is not an argument against the notion of "real" as "mind independence", in the sense that its existence is not contingent on thought. Thought is real insofar as its existence is not contingent on thought about thought.

If "the rock exists" says nothing about the rock, if the rock might be illusory, how can "the rock exists" point out that the rock is not an illusion?

How can "god exists" be meaningful?

Tell Lord Russell. And Kant. — Banno

How would you or presumably they handle illusions? Suppose the rock is illusory. Illusions exist, yes yes, but the sentence is "the rock exists"

Now to say that the rock exists is not to say something about the rock. — Banno

Gibberish.

My thoughts are real. My thoughts are not mind-independent. Therefore some things which are real are not mind-independent. Therefore “real” doesn’t mean “mind-independent”. — Michael

Rather than "mind independent", how about "independent of thoughts about them"? When you say "my thoughts are real", you are thinking about your thoughts. You will have thoughts whether or not you think about having thoughts.

Even better, I like "Existence not contingent on having thoughts about them".

Also a toy gun isn't a real gun, but (for the sake of argument) toy guns are mind-independent. — Michael

"define real" produces two definitions:

"actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed."
"(of a substance or thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine."

It is an unfortunate fact that multiple meanings will forever muddle all philosophical discussion. Let's restrict the conversation to the first usage.

So my mind isn't real? My thoughts and feelings aren't real? — Michael

Your thoughts and feelings themselves are real. But it is what they are about that is in question. When one says "X is real", this does not mean, "My thought that X is real". These are two different assertions.

From my understand hypericin isn't asking if the rock existed yesterday. He's asking which theory of time is correct: growing block, presentism, or eternalism. — Michael

Yes, I regret the way I phrased it.

I see, sentences are real and rocks are true. This must be an extension of your private, idiosyncratic language where "to exist" means being the subject of a predicate. Why your personal language should be of interest to anyone else is beyond me.

Wouldn't it be better to say that what is real is what is true? — Banno

Absolutely not.

.

actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed

This is just another way of saying, mind independent. Real/unreal is a conceptual divide which separates that which exists independently of our thoughts of it from that which is our thoughts of it.

True/false is a different divide, which categorizes statements, not existents.

Seems to me you are not happy with the consequences of reality being mind independent. — Banno

What's wrong with reality being mind independent? Why do you think I am unhappy?

Mind independence is simply what "real" means. What is your problem with this definition?

1. I do not rejected classical logic. But it is not a complete tool, much as Newtonian physics is an accurate but incomplete description. The world seen through the lens of language is simply not bivalent.
2. Rejecting bivalence is not antirealism., in fact quite the opposite. It is rejecting a distortion that prevents a faithful rendering of what is real.
3. That truth or falsity depends merely on the manner in which we speak of seems decidedly antirealist to me.
4. You quoted a discussion where I was defending the reality of the past and future. Its just that this reality, as most things, is not 0 or 1.

what

There's nothing real about that in the philosophical sense. — Tzeentch

To be "real" means to be mind independent. Do you really believe historical events are not mind independent?

If there is no one around to remember my birth, does it still exist? If so, where? — Tzeentch

As long as you are alive or your life had impacts, it exists in its effects on the world. Eventually that effect will fade away.

Can I touch the past and the future? Can you point to it so I can verify it exists? — Tzeentch

When you touch a Greek stature you are touching the present day successor to a far past event and object. When you wrote the above your past writing reverberated into my present. I see it right now.

Just a memory, a conception, a reasoned argument, but nothing real. — Tzeentch

The distinction between "real" and "unreal" is the distinction between mind independence and mind dependence. A rock is mind independent, and so real, while a dragon is completely mind dependent. The event of your birth does not depend on the state of anyone's mind. It is real, and it's mind independent reality extends to right now.

I don't believe I am experiencing my birth right now, unless we have very different ideas of what it means to be born. — Tzeentch

You're whole life is the experience of your birth.

According to theory of relativity, time is a special kind of space. So you could say that the rock of yesterday or tomorrow exists in that space, just in a different location. — litewave

So then the passage of time is an illusion, we experience every moment "simultaneously".

But we are "flatland" creatures living in a 4d universe confined to a 3d space, which, from our perspective, is drifting through the 4th dimension. Is 3d space real to flatlanders? I would say, only to the extent that it impinges on their 2d world. Events in 3d space which do not intersect their 2d world do not exist for the flatlanders.

If they are real, then where are they? — Tzeentch

The past and future are right here, embodied in the present.
You could not understand yourself without understanding that you were born. Your current state of affairs all flow directly from the event of your birth. Therefore your birth is a real event, you experience it right now, that will have completely passed from existence in a hundred thousand years.

Moreover, even if the implication of relativity is true, that past and future are coequally real with the present, doesn't mean that they are real for us.

Similarly, from the god's eye view, there might be billions of other universes. But their events do not intersect ours, at all, and so from our view, they are not real.

Or, there might be an amazing alien civilization "right now" in another galaxy. But it is strictly inaccessible to us, due to the speed of light we are completely limited to imagining it. "unreal" is what only exists in the imagination, and so this civilization is unreal to us.

I have a somewhat similar view. I believe the past and future is real, but only by virtue of the present.

The past is not like a museum hall frozen in time. The past is both the progenitor and the imprint on the present. The bite wound on my finger is real, and the event that caused it is real, as it caused and imprinted the present state of my finger, and my memory of it. But as the scar and my memory fades, so does the bite event. In 100 years, the event will have passed from existence.

Similarly, the future is the set of open possibilities which can be arrived at from the present. A future event is real to the extent that it is the likely possibility or range of possibilities. The future event of me sitting in this chair 10 seconds from my typing this sentence is quite real, most paths from the present lead to it. But it is not quite as real as my present state of sitting. Where I will be at this time of day in June is largely undetermined and so has not emerged as real yet. The first thought of my day 20 years from now is barely real yet at all, since it is almost totally unconstrained from this point.

To say "This rock exists" is saying something about the rock. Can this same something be said of the rock of yesterday or tomorrow? — hypericin

To clarify: By "Can this same something" , I was referring to the property of existence, however you define it. I am not asking if precisely the same thing can be said. By trying to sidestep "how do you define existence", it looks like I created more confusion.

To say “This rock exists” is saying something about the rock. But have I said anything less if I just pointed to the rock and said “This rock”. — Richard B

"This rock" merely points attention to the rock.

And would I say anything more if I said “This is the rock I stubbed my toe on yesterday and by the way it still exists. You mean now? No, I mean still exists in yesterday.” — Richard B

This senselessly attaches a metaphysical claim to a mundane one.

This is good example of confusion disguised as deep metaphysical musings. — Richard B

I make no claim to philosophical depth, but you are the one confused.

This rock exists cannot be said of the rock of yesterday nor the rock of tomorrow, — Mww

No, but you can say, "the rock of yesterday exists", "the rock of tomorrow exists".

The issue cannot be reduced to grammar.

I am wondering more about what it is saying about the person who says it and in what situation saying it would be of any use. — Fooloso4

Perhaps teaching the language, or a philosophical discussion: "This rock exists. Dragons do not."
Perhaps there is a situation where some rocks are illusory projections.

There is one now in the sense that there is one north. But just like north points in different directions at different points, different moments of time are christened "now".

Every single 'now'? Have you ever experienced more than one? — Tate

Of course. Just not simultaneously.

which is also saying something, but not the same something, — Mww

which says something about this rock but does not say the same thing — Mww

So you understand that you did not answer my question. I am asking if the same thing, the property of existence, can be applied to the rock of the past and future.

"Exists" typically connotes the present only because we don't generally speak of metaphysical topics like the existence of the past and future.

clarification — Banno

What you've said was clear enough. Clearly wrong. But clear, yes.

As if putting a piece on the board were a move in chess. — Banno

Except for your analogy.

At least our has finally found religion. There is no God worth its salt that cannot be the subject of a predicate.

Einstein seems to answer that the past and future exist as much as the present. If we grant this, then there is nothing mysterious about a specialness to "now" that cannot be explained by science. It is simply an illusion. After all, every single "now" has this apparent specialness.

Yep. Both may be the. subject of a predicate. — Banno

Nope. This is just not how we use "exist". If it were, "x does not exist" would be a contradiction.

can lead you to water, but not make you drink. — Banno

:lol:

Yes, it does, since you are talking about it. — Banno

how we use the term "such-and-such". — Banno

How about the term "exist"?

You collapse the distinction that the term "exists" picks out. In your sense, fairies on mars exist as much as my nose.

You are asking the wrong question. — Banno

Who made you arbiter of right and wrong questions?