Comments

  • Reading Group: Hume's Of skepticism with regard to the senses
    The optical illusion argument makes no sense to me. The illusion in the checkerboard illusion is that there is a checkerboard, not an imaginary checkerboard. If one were to make an actual board with those same shades, it would look like it was badly faded in some areas. On the other hand if one took a regular checkerboard, and reconstructed the whole scene, there would be no illusion because the eye would correctly identify the squares that were the same colour, despite the variation in lighting due to shadows.

    Note that everything in the above paragraph in the third and fourth sentence is imaginary. But Hume will have been familiar with rainbows, and I think familiar enough with optics to have some understanding of the phenomenon ... "no one takes a rainbow for a persistent extended object," I seem to hear him say, "and that's why it's a safe place for the wee folk to hide their gold, and for the gods to cross into Asgard."
  • Reading Group: Hume's Of skepticism with regard to the senses
    Except it's not a world of objects but of perceptions; objects are mere prejudice. Empiricism slides into idealism.Srap Tasmaner

    No. it's not the objects that he denies, it's the reasoning. Of course there are objects; of course they aren't in the mind, and of course they are not the product of reason. When you follow strict reasoning you end up with 'Yikes!'. Natural impulses are a better guide.

    To begin with the question concerning external existence,
    it may perhaps be said, that setting aside the metaphysical question of the identity of a thinking substance, our own body evidently belongs to us; and as several impressions appear exterior to the body, we suppose them also exterior to ourselves.
    [Snip]
    But to prevent this inference, we need only weigh the three following considerations. First, That, properly speaking, ’tis not our body we perceive, when we regard our limbs and members, regard to but certain impressions, which enter by the senses ; so that the ascribing a real and corporeal existence to these impressions, or to their objects, is an act of the mind as difficult to explain, as that which we examine at present. Secondly...
    — P190.

    So that upon the whole our reason neither does, nor is it possible it ever
    shou'd, upon, any supposition, give us an assurance of the continu’d and distinct existence of body. That opinion must be entirely owing to the IMAGINATION : which must now be the subject of our enquiry.

    These days, we talk about climate models rather than images or imaginings. We know they are made up because we tweak them see how robust the predictions are. The model is not the climate, but the climate is real.
  • Reading Group: Hume's Of skepticism with regard to the senses
    Then he explicitly concludes that the senses themselves cannot produce this separation. The senses don't distinguish what is part of yourself, and what is not.Metaphysician Undercover

    Hume was not an idiot. He was certainly aware of sensory boundaries such that when one hits the nail into the wall with the hammer, it does not hurt whereas when one hits the fingernail, it does. Or that one can see and move ones hand, whereas one can see, but not move another's hand. What he was arguing against was the Cartesian theorised absolute self, devoid of, ie prior to, sensation and perception. Descartes constructs his doubt of the senses so as to produce an immaterial mind. Hume by contrast says that this doubt is in fact impossible, and is a fabrication of philosophers. The mind goes beyond the senses to 'make sense' of them in ways that reason cannot justify, but simply has to accept. There is no proof of existence of anything, self or world, but what is evident needs no proof.

    For as to the notion of external existence, when taken for something specifically different from our perceptions, we have already shewn its absurdity. — Hume
    P188.

    This makes Hume a direct realist, in contrast to Kant, who puts back a separate external existence as the unfathomable, (and to Hume, absurd) Noumenon.

    The subject, then, of our present enquiry is concerning the causes which induce us to believe in the existence of body : And my reasonings on this head I shall begin with a distinction, which at first sight may seem superfluous, but which will contribute very much to the perfect understanding of what follows. We ought to examine apart those two questions, which are commonly confounded together, vizi. Why we attribute a CONTINU’D existence to objects, even when they are not present to the senses ; and why we - suppose them to have an existence DISTINCT from the mind and perception.

    The search is for a ground, a bedrock for knowledge. For Descartes, reason, for Hume, perception. Thus he (Hume) looks for causes of belief not reasons for belief. And as we know from elsewhere, he also argues that causes are unfounded ideas, that arise from but are not present in perception, along with continued existence and distinct existence.
    We have something vaguely of the form P → Q → ~P. Yikes.

    And it happens all over the place, his description of his chamber being another example, and his simple reliance on his own identity.
    Srap Tasmaner

    Just so. Because he is arguing against rationalism. Rationalism is the belief that one can reason from first principles to the world. Descartes shut himself in a darkened room and tried to argue his way out of it. Hume says you cannot argue your way out of a paper bag, but fortunately you don't have to, because the world is already present and available to be made sense of.
  • Merging Pessimism Threads
    I think merging threads is almost always a bad idea. It results in a disjointed and confusing read.

    Deleting threads works though.
  • Reading Group: Hume's Of skepticism with regard to the senses
    The sceptic must assent to the principle concerning the existence of body ... Nature has not left this to his choice. — "

    That idea, [existence] when conjoin'd with the idea of any object, makes no addition to it.

    He doesn't really need the tyranny of Nature here, does he? The sceptic is not admitting anything of any consequence.

    There's a bracketing problem here.

    The idea of existence conjoined with the idea of any object makes no addition to it, but existence conjoined with the idea of any object adds everything to it. A unicorn is a horse with a horn, but the main difference between a horses and unicorns is not the horn, it's that horses exist. Nature bites.

    On such subtitles, philosophies are built and crumble. 'Maps and territories' anyone?
  • Reading Group: Hume's Of skepticism with regard to the senses
    There it is claimed, first, that since to conceive of any thing is to conceive of it as existing, existence is not a distinct idea at all, not a separable perception:

    That idea, when conjoin'd with the idea of any object, makes no addition to it.
    Srap Tasmaner

    Just for fun and profit, here is Kant, who some where said that Hume's work 'awakened me from my slumbers', ripping off Hume big-style,

    Being is evidently not a real predicate, that is, a conception of something which is added to the conception of some other thing. It is merely the positing of a thing, or of certain determinations in it. Logically, it is merely the copula of a judgement. The proposition, God is omnipotent, contains two conceptions, which have a certain object or content; the word is, is no additional predicate—it merely indicates the relation of the predicate to the subject. Now, if I take the subject (God) with all its predicates (om- nipotence being one), and say: God is, or, There is a God, I add no new predicate to the conception of God, I merely posit or affirm the existence of the subject with all its predicates—I posit the object in relation to my conception. The content of both is the same; and there is no addition made to the conception, which expresses merely the possibility of the object, by my cogitating the object—in the expression, it is—as absolutely given or existing. Thus the real contains no more than the possible.
    The Critique of Pure Reason, Section IV.
  • Reading Group: Hume's Of skepticism with regard to the senses
    It might be useful to contextualise Hume a bit. His contemporaries were Voltaire and Rousseau; Thomas Reid was his antagonist -and friend. His inheritance was Newton, Spinoza, and further back the great Descartes. This is the beginning of Science as a rival authority to religion, and a time of questioning and revolution. In particular, it is the first stirrings of the industrial revolution.

    It seems to me that Hume's scepticism was mainly directed towards Rationalism. He is against 'innate ideas' that Descartes inherited from Plato. Rather, everything comes from the senses, and yet there is nothing in the sensory field that makes sense of the senses. Nevertheless, we do make sense of them through ideas like cause and effect, and object persistence, but this is not by a process of (deductive) reasoning, but by an act of imagination. One imagines a world beyond the senses in order to understand and make sense of sense-experience.

    Reason is no longer king, and man has taken the first step towards a reconnection with Nature. Darwin will take the next step, and environmentalism the one after that. The Treatise on Human Nature is thus a work of philosophical psychology, and epistemology -what is man's place in the new world, and what are his fundamental properties? Not the Cartesian 'thinking thing', but the empirical, 'sensing thing'.
  • Reading Group: Hume's Of skepticism with regard to the senses
    Always happy to read a bit of Hume. One the best. And by way of illustration, Modern developmental psychology follows and agrees with his analysis even down to the fact that in infants, notions of cause and effect develop before the more indirect understanding of object persistence. See here, for example.
  • Philoso-psychiatry
    You actually think we shouldn't try to get people who hear voices and think they are God to understand that their beliefs, and the voices they hear, aren't rooted in reality? We should just encourage people to listen to whatever instructions their voices give them, if they give instructions?ToothyMaw

    Your question is rhetorical and rather slanted, but here is a real alternative approach, not antagonistic to drugs where they can be helpful, that does not seek to impose a particular understanding of reality. Open dialogue is an established approach to mental health that has good results dealing with difficult cases.

    Well, the main idea is to listen carefully to each participant in the conversation, accepting their comments without exceptions or conditions. Within this unconditional respect for their voices, people start to listen to themselves. They learn more about their own story. This is why, in the dialogical approach, we do not look to find some right story, or some right commentary on the story of the person in crisis. Really, what is most important is the response in the here-and-now while speaking about the important issues of one’s life. The most difficult and most important experiences most often do not have any words, such that it would be possible to have an explicit narrative about it. They emerge in being moved, e.g. in an emotional reaction, by the things being told. This is the most important moment for a dialogical practitioner.
    {snip}
    In my mind, a much more effective way is to think about ‘psychotic’ behaviour as an embodied psychological response to extreme stress. ‘Psychotic’ experiences are one form of defence that the embodied mind uses to protect itself against a total disaster. They are not pathological, nor signs of an illness, but necessary survival strategies that everyone of us may need in an extreme situation. The extreme situation may be something that is occurring in the present, or it may be drawing on earlier experiences in a person’s life. In hallucinations, the person is most probably speaking about real incidents that have happened, but which they do not yet have any other words, other than ‘psychotic’ ones, to express it with.
    — Jaakko Seikkula
    https://www.madintheuk.com/2022/10/interview-with-jaakko-seikkula-creator-of-the-open-dialogue-approach/

    For a better general overview of the method: https://imhcn.org/bibliography/recent-innovations-and-good-practices/open-dialogue/

    From the above:
    In the 1980s psychiatric services in Western Lapland had one of the worst incidences of ‘schizophrenia’. Now they have the best documented outcomes in the Western World. For example, around 75% of those experiencing psychosis have returned to work or study within 2 years and only around 20% are still taking antipsychotic medication at 2 year follow-up.

    Open Dialogue is not an alternative to standard psychiatric services, it is the psychiatric service in Western Lapland. It is a comprehensive approach with well-integrated inpatient and outpatient services.
  • A simple but difficult dilemma of evil in the world
    What a lot of nonsense you all talk. I made you and the world and you think I am mean because I didn't make it easy and comfortable for you. As if your everlasting comfort ought to be my priority. Perhaps don't worry so much about me, and learn to make each other's comfort a bit more your own priority, instead of the gleeful bickering. — God
  • Asymmetry in What is at Stake and Why the Left Should Stop Eating its Own (as much)
    I don't think I equated the kinds of experiences you just recounted with being called a white privilege denier or racist. Being called a racist does absolutely nothing to me in particular, although it is mildly annoying.ToothyMaw

    Well it can be more detrimental than that, in some contexts.


    No one really believes that disabled people are evil, but every Bond film has a disabled, deformed or scarred villain. Now the effect of this sort of thing, as has been pointed out, is to undermine solidarity -

    We inherit the world, and become responsible for it, such that we need to deal with the stuff we are not to blame for, or become blameworthy for it. It's not enough to say - I don't make the Bond movies - children watch them. And children grow up and make Bond movies - unless they are disabled.

    The thing is that racism is not particularly verbal nor particularly a belief and certainly not reasoned. It is more like an unconscious habit that children pick up from parents neighbours and the media. It is constantly reinforced and yet invisible. One cannot blame kindergarten children for their racism. But nevertheless, one cannot reasonably deny its existence.

    And the Negro's name
    Is used, it is plain
    For the politician's gain
    As he rises to fame
    And the poor white remains
    On the caboose of the train
    But it ain't him to blame
    He's only a pawn in their game.
    — Bob Dylan

    The nature of pawns is that they live in a very small world of their immediate interests through which they are manipulated by players with larger interests. And most are persuaded that the only escape from being a pawn is to reach the end of the board and be transformed into a major piece. It is unheard of for a pawn to become a player - that is not part of the game at all.

    At which point I go back to the simple question of how talk of the difficulties that face white people trying to engage in serious discussion actually functions in the discussion? The poor white remains only a pawn, and incapable of solidarity, and Medgar Evers remains dead, and that is the asymmetry. It would be much easier if black people ...
  • Asymmetry in What is at Stake and Why the Left Should Stop Eating its Own (as much)
    No, but try to adopt a nuanced view on race, attempt to discuss it with candor, and see how quickly you get declared a bigot or a white privilege denier.ToothyMaw

    Ok, let's try. I'll start with a personal anecdote. My daughter aged 4 was a highly articulate, outgoing confident child able to engage children and adults in conversation and eager to relate to friends and strangers alike. She was thus very keen to go to school. But within a couple of weeks of starting school, she started to demand that her (white) father take and collect her, rather than her mixed race mother,
    and then, one evening, she cutoff all her long frizzy hair and hid it under the bed.

    Now where I personally would like to draw a hard line is at the point where anyone whomsoever tries to make a comparison between this kind of experience, and being called a white privilege denier. And that is why this conversation becomes difficult. We are supposed to be having candid discussion about race, but even before it has begun, you have brought forth the terrible injustices that white folks have to put up with. So where do we go from there?
  • Illegitimate Monarchical Government

    inductive arguments are invalid. Obviously, my comments apply to valid arguments only.
    Average
    You seem to be assuming that you will survive the ensuing chaos.Average

    No, I assume some of us will. If none of us do, your question of legitimacy has no application either.

    But I see you are interested in a form of dialogue that I cannot be bothered with, so you'll have to carry on without me.
  • Illegitimate Monarchical Government
    What makes a government legitimate or illegitimate? Is it possible for a government to be legit or are all states sus? The entire discussion revolving around legitimacy seems to involve a lot of moral dogmaAverage

    The problem is in your question. "legitimate" is related to "legislation" and so your question addresses the legitimacy of the legitimising process. Transferring the meaning to reason and philosophy does not help; because then you are questioning the logic of logic...

    Self evident principles and conclusions seem like they are probably just lazy philosophy.Average

    ...like this. Reason can help to keep our thinking straight in the sense that it is truth preserving. This means that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion of a reasoned argument. but without 'self-evident' principles as premises, reason has nothing to operate on.

    Thus you have an unassailable rational position of nihilism and ignorance. The rest of us have no other recourse but to point out the vicious circle and move on to organise the world as best we can on fallible but congenial claims we take as 'self-evident.' When we get in a total mess, we might go back and see if another principle will help us better. "Some men are God's appointed rulers." used to be held self-evident, but there were problems...
  • Philoso-psychiatry


    You chaps don't have to entirely invent a new frame for psychology alone. There has always been resistance to the reductive, chemical/mechanical medical model, and there are alternatives out there.

    The social model:
    Illusion and Reality: The Meaning of Anxiety (1984) showed how an increasingly competitive, unequal society spawns chronic insecurity. The book challenged the notion that anxiety and depression amount to a mental illness denoting that something is wrong with the individual sufferer. For the most part distress and anxiety represent an entirely rational response to the sufferer’s situation. The role of the therapist is therefore not in ‘curing’ the individual, but rather to negotiate demystification and to provide insight into the effects of the problems in the sufferer’s world, based on the sufferer and the therapist’s shared subjective understanding.
    https://www.mentalhealthforum.net/forum/threads/david-smail-1938-2014-pioneer-of-the-social-materialist-analysis-of-psychological-distress.130996/

    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. — J. Krishnamurti

    [url=http://]Thomas Szasz[/url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz has the best critique of the socio-political position of psychiatry, and takes @introbert's position about coercion.

    There is also a development that is something of a synthesis of psychiatry and anti-psychiatry in Trauma Theory. My old thread has some interesting links you might like to pursue.


    I forgot to mention also, the Open Dialogue approach.
  • Liz Truss (All General Truss Discussions Here)
    The lesson I would like everyone to draw from all this is that a dishonest, amoral government must always fail in the long run because a society is first and foremost a moral order. The Party falls apart, because everyone is out for himself and there is no loyalty to person or principle.

    To put this in terms a capitalist might understand, a market that deals in pigs in pokes, snake oil and Ponzi schemes is not worth trading in at all. It's not worth being an expert in, or a market leader of, and it's nothing to write home about. It has no value. None at all.

    There is no government in the UK because no one can believe anything the government says. This means that no one will seriously try to do what the government says, and this means that they cannot govern anything or anyone.

    In such a situation, people are reduced to their own sense of decency and must care for each other as best they can. The government has the status of bad weather, and must be endured and adapted to.
  • Liz Truss (All General Truss Discussions Here)
    Her only supporter is the Philosophical Zombi himself,Grease-Knob. Even in the Gory party, you need a bit more than that. But there is now cross-party support for the idea that it is a mistake to consult the plebs about the leader. And of course The US can confirm that.
  • Liz Truss (All General Truss Discussions Here)
    In office, but not in control. There is a lively expectation that this thread will end in about 2-3 days. It may take a bit longer, but why would she resist at this stage? I don't know who will volunteer to run the shit-show for 2 years and then go down to an annihilating defeat. Jeremy Hunt might do it because he is, I think, a genuine patriot, or Rishi might because he just wants the feather in his cap, and he's going nowhere otherwise. There'll be no more consulting the rank and file about things after this, surely, so it can all be tidied up quickly.

    Or, if the zombie economists have made their killing, they might just call an election and let Labour take the blame for the long grind of poverty and the breakup of the union.

    But the chances of the Prime Muppet making it to Christmas are
  • Why Must You Be Governed?
    What do you say to the Amazonian, then, given that they have stolen their village “the commons”? They have no right to keep their village?NOS4A2

    I will say what they generally say, that they do not own the forest, they belong to it.
  • Why Must You Be Governed?
    We have not agreed to anything.NOS4A2

    Rights come from men.NOS4A2

    Therefore you have no right to your garden.

    That there is logic. Allow me to sell you some.
  • Why Must You Be Governed?
    Rights come from men.NOS4A2

    Oh, a social contract.


    Will you destroy my garden, should there be no “social contract”? Is this why you need to be governed?NOS4A2

    I don't need to be governed. I said at the outset that I am an anarchist. But you need me to be governed.
  • Why Must You Be Governed?
    Do you not believe that a man has a right, as a matter of dignity and survival, to put effort into a place of nature for his own living?NOS4A2

    A right? Where do they come from? God? You get more and more desperately ambitious in your pronouncements. No, it is an insane suggestion that any man has a right to fence off land and reserve it to his own use without the agreement of his neighbours - which is to say, without entering into a social contract with his neighbours to mutually grant each other such and such rights and such and such redress. And should you wonder who is your neighbour, I refer you to the parable of the Good Samaritan.
  • Why Must You Be Governed?
    Would you actually lay claim to a garden someone else has built and cultivated
    — NOS4A2

    Yes. As unenlightened had already speculated...
    Isaac

    And as is happening right now to indigenous people in the Amazon, sanctioned ironically by the government, and as has happened on every colonised continent over and over. This tyranny of property is exactly the social contract that @NOS4A2 thinks he is rejecting.

    "Property is theft." Proudhon proclaimed. Because all property is stolen from the commons which is the Whole Earth. But Nos uses Proudhon only as it suits him, he is no anarchist himself as he admits, but an involuntary non-autocrat whining about his impotence.
  • Why Must You Be Governed?
    My garden? Not because I say so, but because I can justify it. I built it, planted it, and tilled it. If you can justify why it is yours, perhaps you can have it.NOS4A2

    Shit, the appeal to justice? Let's invent a court and make with the justification - your private justification has no sway over me. But anyway, you lie. the garden was already there, all you did was tidy it. I liked it the way it was and you ruined it. Now get off my garden and stop ruining it with your wretched building and cultivation of my lovely wilderness.
  • Why Must You Be Governed?
    You and your desire to steal and appropriate another’s things is not unlike the State’s.NOS4A2

    You silly boy! what makes it yours? Your own say so? Or do you have some kind of bill of sale or other social contract that bestows it on you?
  • Why Must You Be Governed?
    If Unenlightened wants VIP access to my garden or other people’s things you might try asking nicely.NOS4A2

    You and your bloody rules imposed by your bloody army.
  • A definition of "evil"
    Evil is a denial of reality itself, and perpetrator and victim both suffer.Tzeentch

    This.
    We are fragile, and so we are fearful. And of those whose fragility is exploited and abused, there are some who are destroyed psychologically. One can see it sometimes in the eyes, a deadness, and other times it is covered by the brightest of smiles.
    Those whose own fragility has become intolerable, seal themselves off from the world and present themselves as strong. Their strength is to project their own weakness onto the world and punish the world for it. This is hell, because it can never end, and there is no one left to save. Pity the pitiless!
  • Why Must You Be Governed?
    It’s the State. They formed when one group of predatory men sought to exploit the rest. There is nothing public about the State except that they do it all in the open.NOS4A2

    Yes, but you are claiming that when you do it, it isn't the state. The divine right of NOS to his private army etc. Privacy is itself government - thou shalt not forage in my garden. My agri-culture necessarily excludes you, and there can be no privacy without government. Privacy entails contractual agreement just as much as community. You and your insistence on your private property are the predatory and disagreeable government you complain of. Alas for you," To live outside the law you must be honest."
  • Why Must You Be Governed?
    if a private organization seizes power and the monopoly on violence I will naturally oppose it.NOS4A2

    It already has.
  • Why Must You Be Governed?
    It still stinks bad though NOS. All you got is your privates guaranteed by the Godfather.
  • Why Must You Be Governed?
    About the best imagined Anarchist society I've come across is Ursula LeGuin's The Dispossessed.

    But there's not much 'private' there, so @NOS4A2 would hate it.
  • Why Must You Be Governed?
    If I could choose to be governed or not, I would prefer to be without all of the above.NOS4A2

    Who wouldn't? We live in the state of anarchy, in which there is no law, and in particular, no law against setting oneself up as a governor or mafia boss. So feel entirely free to hide from the watchers, to disobey the rulers, and do what thou wilt. Tell them I said it was ok.

    Sure you can. Private schools, private roads, private insurance, private firefighting, private healthcare, private charity, private armies,NOS4A2

    Private armies???? You can be the boss of a gang, sure, but gangs and armies are public - by definition. so it looks like your professed anarchism is just privatised government. We already got that, and it stinks bad.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    This war has gone on long enough. It’s time to negotiate with Mr. HitlerSophistiCat

    "These made up quotes transferred from one war to another are just what one would expect from Himmler's propaganda machine." God.
  • Historical Forms of Energy
    The confusion that tends to arise is between what energy is and what the energy we use is. What we are concerned with is energydifference. The location of the energy difference is what is confusing about the potential energy of the rock at the top of the cliff, and it is between the rock at the top, and the potential rock at the bottom. Attach a rope and pulley to the rock and its descent can be contrived to do some work, if the rock is a long way from the edge, the work of getting it to the edge would be more than the work derived from its potential energy.

  • Some positive feedback


    This is called 'Bridge Song'.



    It is about the Seeker and his Beloved ( the unnamed Sophia, Goddess of wisdom).

    The Beloved invites, and the Seeker always replies:

    "Beloved how I love, how I love
    To see things through the magic of your eyes
    To share things that make your spirit rise up
    But try as I might, and try as I may
    I can't see anything."

    ...until the end, where he says "I will see you - more."

    We are all seekers and lovers of wisdom here, and you no less than any of us. We share our follies, and hope that wisdom shines through somehow.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    To my mind, existential means: relative to existence.Olivier5

    Me too. A gun to the head is an existential threat. A threat to end existence.

    But this ...
    "Nobody wants a World War, but dictators can only be stopped with weapons."jorndoe

    ... is not true. Weapons are only useful for making and carrying out existential threats. Dictators need existential threats, and if people do not agree to make them or respond with fear to them, then they cannot dictate. Co-operators do not need them.

    Your fear is the only thing that can dictate to you:
    Always keep a-hold of Nurse, for fear of finding something worse. — Hilaire Belloc


    Always keep a hold of Putin, or else be shot instead of shootin'.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Now that's a debate.yebiga

    Is it?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    It seems to me that much of our contemporary cultural and political melee comes from an myopic emotive emphasis concerning our past mistakes which has left our culture petty, whining, bitter, resentful, shameful, bereft of pride and most importantly - incapable of agency.yebiga

    It seems to me that this myopic emotive view comes about as a result of the myopic, emotive, jingoistic celebration of the wonders of science, christianity, and whatever political system is flavour of the month, while ignoring the cost in terms of war, famine, and pestilence visited on every inhabited continent, not to mention the destruction of the ecosystem, and the creation of climate change. The astonishing achievements of producing global threats to not only our species but also many many others by man-made apocalypses are not anything to be proud of; if only humanity was a little less capable of agency.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Is the Western World really still a force for good?yebiga

    Still? Which good old day are you nostalgic for? Mussolini made the trains run on time, and The British Empire made the trains, and published Marx.

    (you only get "nuance" in US strategic thinking when arms and oil interests are in some sort of competition, but if they coincide there is no other possible policy).boethius

    Well that has the bitter taste of truth. The land of the free far too costly.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    An adviser to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy posted a message on Twitter saying the explosion which damaged Russia*s road-and-rail bridge to Crimea was just “the beginning”.

    “Everything illegal must be destroyed, everything that is stolen must be returned to Ukraine, everything occupied by Russia must be expelled,” Mykhailo Podolyak wrote.

    He told Reuters he believed the blast had been arranged by Russia, although he did not say how he knew.

    “This is a concrete manifestation of the conflict between the FSB (intelligence service) and (private military companies) on the one hand and the Ministry of Defence/General Staff of the Russian Federation on the other,” he said.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/oct/08/russia-ukraine-war-live-news-fire-engulfs-part-of-kerch-bridge-between-crimea-and-russia#top-of-blog

    Any other offers on who done the bridge? It does look like, and is claimed to be, a truck bomb. In which case it is most probably be Crimean resistance or some Russian faction. Can we expect more?