The whole world belongs to you, so don't wait for anyone to give you a scrap of it, or imagine you can give a scrap of it to anyone.

To paraphrase Socrates in the Euthyphro, the question most philosophers are going to want to ask is "is something morally valuable because Reason values it, or does she value it because it is morally valuable? — Bartricks

So the first thing I would say about the Euthyphro is that it seems to apply to everyone - even nihilists. Yet it is impossible for all views about moral value to be false. So something must be wrong with the objection. — Bartricks

I'm not altogether clear where you are taking your stand, aside from making Apollo your god.But I would say that a question cannot be 'wrong' in the way that a statement can be false. So the way I would put it, that you might find congenial, is that value is the relation between subject and world. The fault with the question is that it is like asking if the Stockton to Darlington railway is in Stockton or Darlington. The answer is both and neither, and all stations between.

I can no longer find this thread in the list “all discussions”. Is that just me? — NOS4A2

It's been demoted to the lounge - because it's crap, presumably. The power of language eh?

The advertising industry illustrates how very widespread this estimation is,
— unenlightened

And illustrates the overestimation very well. If that weren't the case, no one would ever go out of business. They'd merely need to advertise and they'd make tons of money. — Terrapin Station

Well I can see I'm wasting my time talking to you lot.

Is it possible to describe it in biological or physical terms? — NOS4A2

Some idiot might attempt it. Bla bla neurones, bla, pathways, bla behaviour, bla. I prefer mental terms like 'belief'. People tend to believe professors and thus are influenced in their actions. So if your professor is Hitler...

Sure, not everyone can be educated either, but enough can that it matters what poison they drip into your ears.

The thinking used to justify the inquisition of Russell illustrates the common overestimation of the power of speech — NOS4A2

The advertising industry illustrates how very widespread this estimation is, and how much money hard nosed business women are prepared to put where their mouths are by way of amplification. Indeed no one would bother to hire a professor in the first place if their speech was not influential. It would be a weird metaphysics to imagine speech to be anything other than powerful.

I am enlightened... — PhilCF

You are a joke, pal. No one here will take you seriously, so best cut your losses.

"And what I say three times is true." _ The Bellman.

Peace is the meaning of life. — PhilCF

Peace is the meaning of death. One rests in peace. The meaning of life is strife.

"Ask not what philosophy can do for you, but what you can do for philosophy." John F Kennedy.

since the quintessential metre is not a metre long, is the quintessential Hamlet, not actually Hamlet? — Banno

Are we talking real actuality here? or actual reality?

is the quintessential Hamlet, not actually Hamlet? — Banno

"You can't make a Hamlet without breaking legs." That is the quintessential abuse 'actually', and it's going in my Really thread.

The only reason for this is extremely simple: — ssu

private — unenlightened

I think we are still basically the same people as we ever were, British. — iolo

Ah yes, the good old days when the ice was melting and Doggerland was flooding... I remember it well.

For example, I haven't met the American who is happy about the country having the most expensive health care system in the World that only gives out a mediocre service (except for the rich) and results in poor health statistics compared to other countries. Perhaps it's the rich doctor enjoying his 1%-status that enjoys the system. — ssu

Perhaps, but doctors do not constitute a majority - that's lawyers. The problem is one cannot have a good, cheap, universal, private healthcare system. It is not enough to vote for apple pie, one has to vote for orchards and bakeries too, and that means not letting me build a gambling parlour on grandpa's apple farm.

The majority must not just want, they must want what is right. — TheMadFool

Consider the following trilemma:

Reduce taxation.
Increase government spending.
Balance the books.

One might rationally be in favour of all the above, but in general, one cannot have all 3 at once; something has to give. So a rational voter will likely vote for some (any) combination of 2 of these, at the expense of the 3rd. But this means that a population of entirely rational voters can achieve a two thirds majority for all three, and that is impossible to implement.

And this is an idealised and unrealistically simple state of affairs. In practice there are hundreds of interlocked and complex policy decisions to be made and voters are not even well informed, never mind rational. Implementing what the majority want is always actually impossible, and even to the extent it might be possible is unlikely to be wise.

So just because a majority favour policy X, that does not mean that policy X can be implemented in a way that is consistent with other policies that have a majority. Life is more interesting than that, and it is not just a matter of someone knowing better what is right.

Looks like Trump has a radical new green policy aimed at reducing the population.

https://archpaper.com/2018/08/epa-asbestos-manufacturing/?fbclid=IwAR2xJiOq9YJjNgY6FM9J38uvQu4YvTgVsmHpSJNUgXRan3-HRvyoFeStOww

Totally different in the UK. We're all Picts apart from the Celts the Angles The Saxons, the Vikings, the Normans, the Jews, the Poles, the Spanish, the Aussies, the Indians the Pakistanis, the South Africans, the Nigerians, the Caribbeans and so on.

For what it's worth, I include atheism as one of the religious beliefs that deserves protection. — T Clark

They won't thank you for that, armed as they feel themselves to be, with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of fair play.

I am a historian.

Historians are better than the rest of you and know more and are right about everything. And this is the case whether they are religious or irreligious. And we are even nice to you ignorant peasants and don't insult you at all. This is called 'being civilised'.

These days, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, but back in the day, atheists were a particular target for the armchair and comfy cushions. So think of their tedious threads as reparations, and tick each one off as a karmic debt repaid.

Ecophilosophy has been going a good while: 50 -60 years. I think now it's a question of whether you want to die trying to reduce the catastrophe or die making it worse. How does this scratch your surface?

https://truthout.org/articles/this-is-not-the-sixth-extinction-its-the-first-extermination-event/?utm_source=sharebuttons&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=mashshare&fbclid=IwAR1V6O12c2qTcK0eJCfoablz_ZIfznbAd3o6AFgB0g9JBgEhVQGNdW1Xsv0

On the other hand, there are others who think that being slagged off by the Tories counts as a plus...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/16/rnli-donations-surge-tory-criticism-work-overseas-lifeboat-charity?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR19IvevbkhBo9N2QsV4_gwqlx0kHVUvmOZbyapfyobWzAwR0VbS4bBoEww#Echobox=1568642677

It seems to me that there is no problem with threads that argue for atheism. When you're tired of an argument, you can drop out. Where there is a potential problem is when one cannot discuss any other topic in philosophy of religion without being diverted into a fruitless existence argument. The existence or non-existence of the triple goddess is one of her least interesting features. But if threads on the relation of the fates and the furies and the muses are interrupted by demands for proof and suchlike Apollonian nonsense, then the forum loses interesting debate in favour of tedium and repetition.

We do not argue about the existence of justice; whether it is rare, fleeting, ephemeral, entirely made up, or extant in the realm of forms is of little importance. Do you believe in it? If not, I think an instant ban would be appropriate.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140708-when-crowd-wisdom-goes-wrong

Wikipedia has faults and limitations. And so does academia. Even doctors have as institution spent many years doing completely useless and therefore dangerous and damaging operations. Philosophical critiques of academia - Kuhn, Feyerabend etc along with the various scandals indicate that perfection is unobtainable, and alas the perfection of machine knowledge is also a fantasy. The search for God continues to yield no result. Trust no one completely and everyone provisionally.

Citing Francis Galton of all people on the wisdom of the masses - who'd a' thunk it?

No, sorry, don't even implement that!
It will become a tool for the populace (of mere idiots) to destroy themselves.
Society is not viable like that. — alcontali

There's nothing to say that humanity is viable in any configuration. But I am implementing nothing, but describing the sort of arrangement that is generally called 'democratic' which is viable enough in the short term to be extant in many institutions.

I don't think we are that far apart. Cat knows about mice. Has mouse-hunting competence. Has a language-less experience of its own. In that senes of belief that requires articulation of a creed, Cat does not believe, but in that sense of competently waiting by the mouse-hole for the mouse to appear it knows exactly what it is about.

Language is the only tool by which we can share our interior space with another while still retaining it as ours and respecting them as theirs. Abstractions, on the other hand, allow us to subsume the other under the guise of knowledge, under categories which turn the other into a sort of tool to be used. But if there is no knowledge of the internal, then all we have left with is our knowledge of language which allows sharing, but not categorizing. — Moliere

If I tell you I am uncomfortable with this use of language, I don't think I am sharing my internal space with you. I'd complain to the moderators if you were getting inside my head.

Again, you say [if] "there is no knowledge of the internal", but how could you possibly know that - how could you talk at all about the internal, having no knowledge of it?

In "Politics and the English language", George Orwell points out that the term "democracy" resists being given a definition. Therefore, it is a member of the class of "meaningless words". — alcontali

George should have known better. 'Heap' resists being given a definition. But what has become clear of late is that democracy cannot be identical with 'the will of the majority', for the simple reason that the will of the majority is as a matter of course often contradictory and thus cannot by any means be implemented. Accordingly, one needs an interpretive layer, such as 'representatives' to examine the will of the people and make as much sense of it as may be, and implement that. And that implies a constitution and that implies the rule of law and a judiciary, and so on. Jeez, un, life is complicated!

Under this parsing I agree that I cannot know that I know things, — Moliere

Well I don't know who you agree with, but it ain't me. I say a cat knows when there is a mouse in the mouse-hole. It has the belief, justified by smell. It will never make a knowledge claim though, coz it can't. I can, because I have language and insight.

And I think I'd like to say that knowledge is not internal — Moliere

Well I think I'd like to take it that have said it, and ask you what you mean. What do you mean?

Knowledge may be stored in books, fossils, etc, but books nor fossils don't know shit.

Rather, knowledge is what we build together by acting -- so belief is clearly involved, but knowledge is a social product whereby we act together. — Moliere

Well I'd start from the usual meaning of JTB rather than try and persuade folks that they mean something else, unless you want to be an internal eliminatist or something. We use knowledge to build bridges but we build them out of something more substantial.

Language allows states of mind to become abstractions that can function as elements of thought - the word "thought" there becomes an element in the thought that contains it. This is what allows for introspection. (The same can happen with other mental terms of course, knowledge, emotion, introspection, pig-headedness, etc.)

So, which of these two forks sound more interesting to explore, to you? Characterizing knowledge, or intersubjective introspection? — Moliere

I'll take both at once. One cannot talk about knowledge without using introspection, because knowledge is interior. I can know shit without introspection, but I cannot know that I know shit.

And you know that I know that I know, because I just told you, and vice versa, and there's the intersubjective, which is how we decide what knowing is in the first place.

Yes. It seems fairly intuitive in this case, and the only reason i brought it up is that it illustrates another feature of Monty's knowledge that is somewhat forgotten but necessary. - that Monty knows not only where the car is, but also what your choice is and responds selectively to both.

millionaire answers, Right and Wrong.

my guess:- R_____W_____W_____W

Computer
leaves:- WWW____R______R_____R

Imagine a world where you always get caught, you always get found out and you always get punished to a degree that the crime really doesn't pay. Virtue would be mere common sense and vice idiotic. Even the nastiest little toe-rag would conform just like the saintly. One couldn't tell the difference. God has to avert his gaze somewhat to sort the wheat from the chaff.

You have my full attention. — Amity

I'll need a deal more than that for my kiss and tell stories.

The best way to learn a new language is to take a lover, and I think you will find the Germans more attractive than the ancient Greeks. So take the Greek course, and the German lover.

You had sex with other mods at the old place — Amity

Better sex. Do pay attention. This lot are so conservative.

Eh, what? Sex was much better in the old days.

What has happened to the Conservative Party? — ssu

It's an interesting question and a complex answer. I would suggest two movements both originating in the US, and influencing through Thatcher and Blair primarily. The Thatcher effect is basically the neoliberal turn exemplified by 'there's no such thing as society'. - an ideological individualism justified by some Rand/ social darwinian philosophy. The Blair effect is basic populism, there is only one inviolable principle, 'get elected' - spin becomes fake news.

The combination of individualism and amoral power seeking results in social collapse.

Judging by the fact they asked one person to discuss consequentialism for ten minutes, then another to talk about utilitarianism for ten minutes, for such a general application of the theory, they do not. Thanks for the feedback! — Zachary Beddingfield

Kant is probably a good source for Kantianism, at least as good as Jesus is for Christianity. And Stanford is the go to place for online scholarship on all things philosophical. But life is short, and if the excellent @Bartricks will not allow wiki as a reasonable beginning, try a philosophy dictionary such as this, for a down and dirty quick cheat sheet of 'isms, big cheeses, and other technicalities.

Is that (that it didn't remove your guess) a reason not to switch? Note that the computer in this case knows, as monty Hall does, what the right answer is, and always removes wrong answers.