You are aware that 2+2 = 3+1 ? — Real Gone Cat

Of course!

You want to find mysticism here. — Real Gone Cat

If we are given 4 donuts and I take 3 and give you one, you might complain that is not fair. Would you be satisfied if I defended this by saying that since 2+2 is 4 and 3+1 is 4 then 3+1 is 2+2? Or would you say, as I did above that:

3+1 "is" 4 but 3+1 "is not" 2+2 — Fooloso4

I recently found it and haven't looked at it closely, but this contemporary translation seems to be pretty good: http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/LoserLit/zarathustra.pdf[/url]

But yes, he is difficult to read, intentionally so. It has something to do with his hatred of idle readers:

Of all that is written I love only that which one writes with his blood.
Write with blood, and you will experience that blood is spirit.
It is not easily possible to understand the blood of another: I hate the
reading idlers.
Whoever knows the reader will do nothing more for the reader. One
more century of readers – and the spirit itself will stink.
That everyone is allowed to learn to read ruins not only writing in the
long run, but thinking too.
Once the spirit was God, then it became human and now it is even
becoming rabble.
Whoever writes in blood and proverbs does not want to be read, but to
be learned by heart.
[Zarathustra, "Reading and Writing"]

.

And something to do with hiding:

Everything that is profound loves the mask [Beyond Good and Evil, 40]

The comment seems irrelevant to this thread. — Art48

The thread is about the use of the term "is". You start with a mathematica example, but "is" as it is used here simply means equal to.

Rather than:

Force IS equal to mass times acceleration. — Art48

you could say: force equals mass times acceleration.

Or are you objecting to this as well because it seems to confer godlike authority?

So you've changed the meaning of "is" within a single sentence. — Real Gone Cat

I haven't changed anything. "2+2 is 4" never meant anything other than 2+2=4. The point of saying that 3+1 is not 2+2 was to indicate that "is" means equal and not the same thing

Trump presented himself as a piece of garbage from the beginning. — Baden

Some see him that way, others see him as worthy of being president. Of those who regard him as worthy some overlook his flaws. It was common for Christian Evangelists, many of whom regarded him as a savior, to say things like "he is human" and "we are all sinners". Nothing he did mattered as long as he overturned Roe and championed "Christian rights".

Gary Hart's 1984 run for US President came to an abrupt end when it was revealed he was having an extra-marital affair. Standards certainly have changed.

I don't know what the image is that Marin cultivated or the extent to which her image has changed in the eyes of the Finnish people or how much they even care about about what she does in her private life.

My comment was intended to be less about her and more about what people expect of their political leaders. In the past it was easier to keep things out of the public eye. I don't think the behavior of political leaders has changed all that much, it is just that it is far more difficult to maintain the illusion of being a paragon of virtue.

Do you have some special mathematical definition of "is"? — Real Gone Cat

Nothing special. The OP said:

“Two plus two is four” — Art48

This is commonly understood to mean two plus two equals four and not two plus two is the same thing as four. 3+1 "is" 4 in the sense of equals 4 but not that 3+1 and 2+2 are the same thing.

We could do without "is": 2+2=4, 3+1=4, 2+2=3+1.

Maybe. But given what has been going on elsewhere, it may be that standards and expectations are changing. Trump has certainly done his part to lower the bar.

... of the many Nietzsches one could choose to adopt as the ‘true’ Nietzsche, all of which can be linked to solid evidence from his work, one should choose the most radical. — Joshs

Why?

My preference, and it comes down to a matter of preference, is for the interpretation that helps us understand the text, attending to the details and connecting them, illuminating the whole of the text or texts of the author.

An appropriately "radical" one would be one that gets to the roots, not one that pushes it to the edge.

We see this happen all the time in interpretive scholarship. Dreyfus’ reading of Heidegger and Husserl has been dumped in favor of more radical approaches, Hacker’s Wittgenstein has been replaced for many by Cavell’s and Conant’s, etc. — Joshs

This can become a matter of an uncritical preference for the new and novel. Cavell's and Conant's work is no longer new. It seems likely that some will see this as good reason to dump them in favor of something less conventional. An interpretation may benefit from the work of earlier interpreters, but there is the danger of interpreters focusing on earlier interpretations moving further away from the text itself with each iteration.

My point was that even the most scholarly rigorous reading of an author , one which seeks nothing other than to capture without distortion the author’s original intent, will be oriented by implicit cultural presuppositions ... — Joshs

A "scholarly rigorous reading" and "the most daring and interesting reading of Nietzsche , the one that pushes him to his radical edge" are two different things. Being historically situated is not a choice, but what you take to be the most interesting reading is a deliberate choice.

To me that two key questions are: 1)What is the most daring and interesting reading of Nietzsche , the one that pushes him to his radical edge? 2) Whether or not we think this most radical reading is consistent with the author’s text, can we at least understand it’s assertions on its own terms? — Joshs

If the most daring and (to your mind) interesting readings of Nietzsche do not have to be consistent with Nietzsche's text, then are they still readings of Nietzsche and not misreadings? If the assertions are to be understood on their own terms, and these assertions are not consistent with Nietzsche's text, then is what sense, if any, are they still assertions about Nietzsche's text?

In mathematics, the word “is” seems justified. Two plus two IS four and even God himself can’t change that fact; “Two plus two is four” seems to live in its own pristine, immutable world, entirely beyond the reach of any outside power to change. — Art48

3+1 "is" 4 but 3+1 "is not" 2+2

Added: "is" as used here is short for "is equal to".

Yes, seppuku is the only way in the face of her disgrace.

But a politician is a public representative of a state — javi2541997

Right, a representative of the

interests

of the state. How is she doing in that regard?

The assumption by many seems to be 'politics is sober and serious, please don't have a life too.' — Tom Storm

I wonder who else is covered under this assumption, doctors, lawyers, Sunday school teachers?

Good times as such tend to end binge-party-style where it concerns the very young as young people are less limited by a sense of responsibility — Seeker

But this was not about the very young.

especially if provided 'exemplary behavior' of someone as succesful as the PM. — Seeker

Except this was not provided as exemplary behavior. It was an unauthorized video of people dancing at private party. Do you really think very young people will start drinking and dancing because the PM does?

You seem to be making this about me, — Seeker

I am not making it about you, I am making it about what you have said.

my personal opinion is of no value — Seeker

And yet you continue to make them public.

quote="Seeker;732450"]I am merely stating facts rather than going on a crusade.[/quote]

You are not stating facts, you are imagining what the consequences of seeing Marin singing and dancing will be on very young people. It is good to know that you are not going on a crusade, but, unfortunately, others are

After all this seems to be politics about politics. — Seeker

It seems to be a political attempt to embarrass or discredit her.

Should a minister of state, being an important example (role model) to a lot of (very) (young) people, take care not to present himself/herself (in public, via smartphone/internet) under the influence of an intoxicating substance which is known for its addictive (and destructive) properties? — Seeker

She was not presenting herself in public. It was a private party. The video was made public without her permission.

Why would "(very) (young) people" make of this something more than someone dancing, singing, and having a good time? Many of them have parents, who are their primary examples and role models, who drink and sing and dance.

Or is it that such behavior shouldnt be made into an issue because the substance is legalized and (especially not) because the prime minister seems to be able to absorb certain quantities of the substance without any negative consequence (which could be considered an example in and of itself)? — Seeker

No, it shouldn't be an issue because she was not doing anything wrong. Are you accusing her of not drinking responsibly? Or do you think someone in her position should not drink at all?

From Being to becoming.

Going back at least to Plato traditional morality has sought a fixed, unmoving point by which to guide us. Movement or change was, and by many still is, regarded as a defect. Fixed truths were beneficial or even necessary. But life is not fixed and unchanging.

Are you saying morality springs from the same source? — Tate

Yes.

What is self-overcoming exactly? — Tate

I will let Zarathustra tell us.

And Zarathustra spoke thus to the people:

“I teach you the overman.Human being is something that must be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?
All creatures so far created something beyond themselves; and you want to be the ebb of this great flood and would even rather go back to animals than overcome humans?
What is the ape to a human? A laughing stock or a painful embarrassment. And that is precisely what the human shall be to the overman: a laughing stock or a painful embarrassment.
You have made your way from worm to human, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now a human is still more ape than any ape.
But whoever is wisest among you is also just a conflict and a cross between plant and ghost. But do I implore you to become ghosts or plants?
Behold, I teach you the overman!
The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth!

Or does it temper the will to power, which I interpret as the will to dominate one's environment? — Tate

All of life is a will to power. It does not make sense to interpret this as the will to dominate. The will to power can be seen in the majesty of the mighty oak and the persistence of the weed emerging in the hostile environment of sunbaked concrete.

I'll argue that it's opposed to life and the will to power. — Tate

In the Genealogy the development of Christian morality is the development of the will to power through man's self-overcoming. It is only later that it becomes life denying.

How best to live in the absence of knowledge of what is best. That is the question.
The examined life provides the answer? — Amity

No. The examined life is the life of questioning, including questioning our opinions about what is best.

To give serious consideration to different views on e.g. what constitutes philosophy. — Amity

Or, perhaps giving serious consideration to different views is what constitutes philosophy, at least in the tradition of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. That is, the tradition of zetetic skepticism.

What made you bring that into this conversation about opinion? — Amity

The article you cited on Plato, friendship, and eros. Eros is typically regarded as being about bodily desires, but Plato treats it more broadly to include desires of the soul. To the casual reader it may appear that he makes it about desires that are not of or are separate from the body, but the division of one (a person or individual) into two entities (body and soul) is problematic.

Misology is defined as the hatred of reasoning; the revulsion or distrust of logical debate, argumentation, or the Socratic method.

Is that what you mean?
Basically, people expect answers or solutions from philosophy. When it fails to deliver certainty, then they see no use for it. Indeed, it is despised as a waste of time. Navel-gazing? — Amity

Yes, the term appears in the Phaedo. I arises from a love of philosophy that expects too much from it. In this case the failure of philosophy to give answers about death that will alleviate the fear of death. Not only their own death but Socrates death, who was sentenced to death for his life of philosophical inquiry. Not only a waste of time but dangerous.

Plato or Socrates used dialogue to question assumptions on which opinions are based? — Amity

Yes, and @Michael that is why a thread on opinion (onions) does not belong in the Lounge. It is of central philosophical concern.

So, first of all, what do you mean exactly by balance in one’s soul ? — Hello Human

I cannot tell you exactly what it means, but the politics of the soul as discussed in Plato's Republic is a good place to start. The soul is a competition of desires. Different souls are ruled by different desires. The just soul is one in which the various desires are brought into a hierarchical order, from low - bodily desires, to high - the desire for the just, beautiful, and good.

That's what politicians are. Appearance... — javi2541997

As I said, you mistake appearance for statecraft.

Does this include alcohol?
— Fooloso4

Is that a rethorical question? If not, alcohol is also considered a drug yes. — Seeker

There is nothing in the video that is out of line with the behavior of people at an alcohol fueled party. She said she had been drinking. It that the end of it because it was alcohol, even though the outcome can be destabilizing? Or is it that drinking should be prohibited for those in public office? Or is it that drinking is okay as long as dancing the minuet?

It is not that 'crazy' when going through the variable 'outcomes' concerning various consumers of drugs ... Drugs-usage in general is known to destabilize people ... — Seeker

Does this include alcohol?

But Benkei started this OP to debate about this specific behaviour not her professional agenda... — javi2541997

But you said:

we expect from a statesman to be, at least, professional. — javi2541997

If you are to judge her professionalism you should do so with regard to her actions in her professional capacity.

We should expect more straightness from a PM. — javi2541997

What we should expect is statesmanship, the ability to steer the ship of state. It seems more than a bit quaint to hold to a standard of professionalism that excludes dancing at a time where true statesmanship is so rare. You mistake the illusion of a staid public image for statecraft. Appearance over substance.

we expect from a statesman to be, at least, professional. Right? — javi2541997

Then why not discuss what she has done professionally rather than clutching your pearls because she was videoed dancing at a private party?

I know who to ask, but will Fooloso4 respond? — Amity

You came to the right place, for I too am an expert on love.

The article compares Socrates' claim in the Symposium with his claim in the Apology, but it is not only the seemingly contradictory claims but the occasions during which he made them that should be considered. Being on trial in a court of law and a contest of speeches about eros are very different occasions requiring different ways of speaking.

This contest mirrors that of the contest between philosophy and poetry. It is the poets who claim to be experts on love. For Socrates to claim to be an expert in the presence of highly regarded poets was both surprising and provocative. In addition, Socrates was not, as it is commonly understood, an erotic man.

But how different are Socrates' claims in the Apology and Symposium? As Socrates says in the Symposium, eros is the desire for what one does not possess. Philosophy is erotic in that it is the desire for wisdom. It is Socrates' lack of knowledge, as professed in the Apology, that is the basis of his knowledge of eros, the desire to know.

Knowledge of ignorance is not simply recognizing one does not know. Socrates' "human wisdom" is a matter of the examined life, of how best to live in the absence of knowledge of what is best. The "art of love", ta erôtika, is the art of living. Since we all desire what is good, the art of living cannot simply be the philosophical life.

In the Phaedo Socrates says that philosophy is the practice of death and dying, the separation of body and soul. The joke here being that the only good philosopher is a dead philosopher. More serious is the question of the relationship between life and death, body and soul. I have discussed this here

We are not souls temporarily attached to bodies. We are ensouled bodies. One thing not two. Desire does not cut along the distinction between body and soul. Since we know nothing of death, preparation for death turns from unanswerable questions of death back to life, to how we live, here and now.

What does that even mean?
To converse elenctically...especially on a philosophy forum? — Amity

In the cited article Reeve defines it as "how to ask and answer questions". We may ask, in turn, what is the goal and what is the result of such inquiry? Socrates used it to demonstrate that one does not know what he assumed to know. This may lead to quite different results - anger, shame, resentment, or, as Socrates hoped, the desire to know, to a dissatisfaction with opinions. But this, in turn, can lead to a dissatisfaction with philosophy itself, to misologic, when it fails to provide the answers expected of it.

Philosophy is often treated as the art of argumentation - making arguments that attempt to be least vulnerable to attack, while attacking opposing positions. The limits of argument, however, are not the limits of philosophy. It is here that the "ancient quarrel' between philosophy and poetry is reconfigured. This is why the dialogues often turn from logos to mythos. The promise of dialectic in the Republic, the use of hypothesis to become free of hypothesis is itself hypothetical. The image of transcendence, from opinion to the sight of the Forms, is just that, an image. The mythic philosopher of the Republic who possesses knowledge is no longer a philosopher, that is, one who desires to know. The philosopher, like the poet, is an image maker.

Indeed. It's puzzling how a child that can barely string two or three words together knew when she heard the claim that it was not true, and then went on to demonstrate that much, and yet highly educated people seem to have talked themselves right out of that.

I think that that qualifies for Witt's notion of bewitchment. The story may be able to tell us something about hinge propositions??? — creativesoul

This apparently ruffled some feathers when I said it, way back when, eight days ago:

The dogma of the linguistic keeps some in their slumber. — Fooloso4

The "space of reasons" can be a philosophical prison, a cave. The notion of norms requires desedimentation. The Greek term 'nomos' means law and custom or convention, as well as song. In the absence of truth and knowledge there is nomos, likely songs or stories.

In the Timaeus Plato introduces a different notion of space, the Chora, with its own likely story. It is the work of the imagination, philosophical poesis. Something often disparaged by reason, but to the detriment of philosophy. It fails to recognize its own imaginative assumptions regarding what reason can do.


For a more detailed discussion of the Chora: Shaken to the Chora.

From that account:

Timaeus begins with a likely account of the beginning, which is to say, not at the beginning, but with where he is able to begin. The inability to identify the true father, the origin, the beginning, leads to bastard reasoning. Our reasoning is on the basis of likeness in the double sense of sensible things being a likeness without ever having what belongs to that which it is a likeness of (52c) and, a likeness in the sense of being likely or like what it is without being what it is that it is like. And, of course, without access to the original we cannot say just how likely the story is to be true.

Forms and Chora are an indeterminate dyad. Together they order all that comes to be through intellect and necessity, that is, according to paradigm and chance, order and disorder, determinacy and indeterminacy.

Will she become a Democrat? — Tate

I don't think so. I think she will try to return the Republican Party to what she thought it represented pre-Trumpism.

I just don't see how the Republican party can endure as it is. — Tate

Just about everyone who is not with Trump has left. The party may endure but its principles clearly have not.

I'm not sure that's going to happen. Do you think it will? — Tate

I don't know. Prior to Trump I would not have thought that things could be as they are. Right now it seems that the differences that divide us are greater than anything that might unite us. But, of course, being united is not necessarily in itself something good.

If there are no independent facts of the world to fix our concepts to, them concepts liken pragmatic relevance, consistency, anticipatory compatibility and coherence replace true and false belief as expressions of how we cope with our world. This is self-creation rather than a fitting of language with fact. — Joshs

Wittgenstein on the relation between facts and concepts:

From PI II (PPF)

366. I am not saying: if such-and-such facts of nature were different, people would have different concepts (in the sense of a hypothesis). Rather: if anyone believes that certain concepts are absolutely the correct ones, and that having different ones would mean not realizing something that we realize - then let him imagine certain very general facts of nature to be different from what we are used to, and the formation of concepts different from the usual ones will become intelligible to him.

From Zettel :

(352) Do I want to say, then, that certain facts are favorable to the formation of certain concepts; or again unfavorable? And does experience teach us this? It is a fact of experience that human beings alter their concepts, exchange them for others when they learn new facts; when in this way what was formerly important to them becomes unimportant, and vice versa. (It is discovered e.g. that what formerly counted as a difference in kind, is really only a difference in degree.

From On Certainty:

558. We say we know that water boils and does not freeze under such-and-such circumstances. Is it conceivable that we are wrong? Wouldn't a mistake topple all judgment with it? More: what could stand if that were to fall? Might someone discover something that made us say "It was a mistake"?
Whatever may happen in the future, however water may behave in the future, - we know that up to now it has behaved thus in innumerable instances.
This fact is fused into the foundations of our language-game.

What does it mean that Liz Cheney lost? Anything?This is something I've been wondering about. — Tate

For Cheney it means continuing her efforts to keep him out of office. If she is to help accomplish this it will not be with the support of the Trump Party. From an outsider's perspective, it does not look like what was once the Republican Party is ready to separate itself from Trump. Her sights are set on the national level rather than whatever is going on in Wyoming. She will not follow the current trend of working within the party by working against the Democrats. This is likely to be seen in a favorable light by moderates and Independents.

I think she will have a strong public presence, but she may be more effective speaking out seeking or holding public office. Much depends on the results of the current investigations into Trump and his company. Like the proverbial rats abandoning ship, a significant number of Republicans may come to see him as a liability. Taking the long view, Cheney might see the current situation as a temporary anomaly, and herself in the right position to regain political power in one form or another as things shift back to "normal".

...what everyone seeks is knowledge of the good. — Hello Human

But not everyone seeks knowledge of the good. They simply assume that what they seek, what they desire, is good. If, however, they were to seek the good rather than whatever it is they desire, then they would seek knowledge of the good. Or to put it differently, their desire would be to know the good.

Knowledge of the good is virtue, which is wisdom. — Hello Human

Yes, but knowledge is not a passive possession. It is the active state of the virtuous person who is wise.

And what is knowledge’s place in this ? — Hello Human

Since the good is what we aim for, it is knowledge of the good. This may be possible for one who has achieved human excellence, but for the rest of us we rely on deliberation about what seems best.

Yes, we shouldn’t be indifferent to them, but I think that doesn’t mean that they can be good or bad, it means that we have to consider them when making a decision, but what is good or bad, in the end, is the action we take. — Hello Human

Our actions may have unintended consequences. We may think doing this or that is good, but if the result is harm and suffering, then is the action good?

So if I understand well, you think that to be wise is to have realized human excellence, and that to be wise is to have achieved some equilibrium of the soul ? — Hello Human

Rather than something achieved,the idea of human excellence is something to aspire to, like the just city/soul in the Republic, an image in speech. And, as with the discussion in the Republic, it depends not simply on an equilibrium, but the right balance of the parts, each seeking its own desire.

You misunderstand his quote. — Benkei

I don't think so. This is an example of "Trumpspeak". He said it in such a way as provide plausible deniability, but we know how his supporters are reacting. As the article noted: "Even Trump's allies on Fox News have urged him to tamp down the "violent rhetoric" amid his verbal assault on the FBI."

I agree, however, that he would not think an insurrection terrible, but he is well aware that those who are not his followers and those who do not wish the overthrow of the government would see it as terrible or even terrorism.

From the salon article cited by Michael:

"Whatever we can do to help — because the temperature has to be brought down in the country. If it isn't, terrible things are going to happen," Trump said, adding that people "are not going to stand for another scam."

Rather than bring the temperature down, Trump turns it up, making threats, calling the investigation a scam, and signaling his followers to not stand for it, but says nothing to condemn the threats made by his followers on the FBI and DOJ.

Well, if antirealism means not attributing a truth value to unknowns, then he is an antirealist. But he does not attribute truth value to knows either. It is the system as a whole not particulars that is true.

I am reminded of Arthur Koestler's definition of philosophy:

The systematic abuse of a terminology specially invented for that purpose.

'there are plums in the ice box.' — Pie

What about the fish?

That tells me nothing about Hegel's attitude towards the truth value of "there is a teapot in orbit around Jupiter". — Banno

Hegel's concept of truth is not to be found in truth values:

From the preface to the Phenomenology:

5. The true shape in which truth exists can only be the scientific system of that truth.

6. ... truth has the element of its existence solely in concepts.

18. Furthermore, the living substance is the being that is in truth subject, or, what amounts to the same thing, it is in truth actual only insofar as it is the movement of self-positing, or, that it is the mediation of itself and its becoming-other-to-itself.