Comments

  • Is Philosophy the "Highest" Discourse?
    I don’t find philosophy useless at all. I use it all the time. — T Clark

    My first thought was to report you to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Philosophy, and then I remembered this, which has appeared in this forum before:—

    A Zen Koan
    The Zen master Mu-nan had only one successor. His name was Shoju. After Shoju had completed his study of Zen, Mu-nan called him into his room. "I am getting old," he said, "and as far as I know, Shoju, you are the only one who will carry on this teaching. Here is a book. It has been passed down from master to master for seven generations. I also have added many points according to my understanding. The book is very valuable, and I am giving it to you to represent your successorship."

    "If the book is such an important thing, you had better keep it," Shoju replied. "I received your Zen without writing and am satisfied with it as it is."

    "I know that," said Mu-nan. "Even so, this work has been carried from master to master for seven generations, so you may keep it as a symbol of having received the teaching. Here."

    The two happened to be talking before a brazier. The instant Shoju felt the book in his hands he thrust it into the flaming coals. He had no lust for possessions.

    Mu-nan, who never had been angry before, yelled: "What are you doing!"

    Shoju shouted back: "What are you saying!"

    http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/67whatareyoudoing.html

    There is theory; and sometimes there is practice. Philosophers are perhaps like architects; they draw plans of buildings or ways of life that do not exist; and sometimes builders and others make use of the plans.
  • Is Philosophy the "Highest" Discourse?
    If there is an air of insubstantiality about this thread, it is because it is concerned with the philosophy of philosophy. This makes it particularly liable to disappear up its own fundament.

    Accordingly, I propose, firstly, that philosophy is always parasitic; one might try a 'philosophy of nothing', but it wouldn't get very far. Rather, one first starts to talk or write about something and at some later stage, one starts to examine the verbiage philosophically. as philosophy of religion, or knowledge, or psychology or whatever.

    And secondly, I suggest an inversion. Philosophy is what one has recourse to when the edifice of one's talk has become sufficiently 'high' that it is in danger of falling into ruin. Thus it is the foundations of a topic that philosophy is concerned with, the very lowest.

    If possible, (ideally sic) the best foundation is bedrock, If one has reached bedrock, as Wittgenstein would have it, one has reached the end of that portion of philosophy, the questions are resolved or dissolved, and the superstructure is as sound as it can be.

    By contrast, spiritual talk is untethered, lighter than air and floats higher and higher until it reaches such height that it attains outer space, where there is no longer any up or down, and no one can hear you pontificate.
  • Post-truth
    ↪tim wood
    Big picture, dude. You do the closeups! Never mind carry on.

    I found it almost literally incredible that even a large minority of Americans could vote for Trump, never mind a majority. How did it come to pass - the credulity required is incredible?
  • Post-truth
    But to the extent that any party controls the better and the worse, which do you think has in the US governed for the worse, since, say, Hoover? — tim wood

    It really doesn't matter much what I think. Americans seem to think... well I'm an ocean away, see if you can get an idea of what they think. But I think that they think, since you ask, that you're all a bunch of incompetent greedy lying buggers, and they're messing with your heads by voting for the greedyest, lyingest, incompetentest, bugger around to give you a taste of the medicine you've been force feeding them from both parties since, say, Hoover.

    I'm not saying this is a good idea; I think it's going to work out really badly for America and the world. I wish it hadn't happened, but it gives too much intelligence to Trump to make him totally responsible. Democrats have been getting it badly wrong for a long time and this is their fault as well as ordinary republicans fault. Maga happened because they both failed.
  • Climate change denial
    An interesting chat about climate models, that explains how they differ from weather models.

  • Writing styles
    *Taps podium with a small stick*
    I think we are all as in tune as we're ever going to be; let's begin the overture...
  • Post-truth
    Obama's first or Trump's? Answer! And we can play this game for years, because that is how many lies Trump has told - or forever because he is still lying. And if you repeat and maintain them, then you're a liar as well. Just look at the history. — tim wood

    Yes, I already drank that cool-aid, and I'm wondering why it turns out most people are sick of it. Yes Trump only lies when he opens his mouth. But there is a lie you and all the righteous pedantic democrats have missed that they are telling, that matters and that people know is not true for them, that everything's fine except Trump's mouth. Really, people are poorer, and they don't like it, and everything is not fine. To people who are suffering, happy-clappy looks plain stupid. As stupid as worrying about who has the biggest hands/crowd/dick. And that's what you come back at me as the fucking issue? Maybe swear off your own cool aid for a day. You know how many times I've been told that Hannibal Lector is a fictional character? I been listening to too many democrats already. You're looking the wrong direction, man, you bin misdirected and you lost. Think about that. You corrected all the lies people don't give a damn about, and you lost, because people vote for demagogues who spew hate when they are full of hate because they are suffering.

    You can play your being right game for years, and go on losing and not understanding as long.
  • Post-truth
    Trump, apparently one of many, is post-truth. His - their - lies should not be, cannot be, accepted. — tim wood

    It seems to me that the Trump narrative, that things used to be good and have gone to shit is fundamentally true and agrees with the experience of middle America. So the only lie is the promise to make it great again.

    Whereas the democrat's lie that everything is fine because the stock market is up, which feeds on the lie that everyone is an entrepreneur (though who is left over to make the trade that everyone takes a cut of is a mystery); that lie is not convincing any more.

    Ordinary people are being screwed, and deceived into voting for the people who are screwing them, by misdirecting their discontent towards Johnny Foreigner and feeble democrats offering no solutions to a problem they are pretending isn't happening. The lies are on both sides and the result is no communication and the breakdown of society.

    Idiot Wind.
  • Backroads of Science. Whadyaknow?
    I think rather than a makers mark, password, or signature I'd prefer to think of these various protein complexes in analogue to the markings -- which also can mark all sorts of functions within a community. Mostly because the former suggests a singular hand, an "I" marking something, when in fact there is a wider system in which self/other makes sense (to annihilate or not-annihilate the cell) — Moliere

    Hmm. I'm struggling to understand this. Tribal markings arise in the wider system of tribes; cell markings arise in the wider system of multi cellular organisms; makers marks arise in the larger system of the marketplace.

    Going back to an earlier thread, marking is the act of making a distinction.
  • Backroads of Science. Whadyaknow?
    Metaphysically -- if self/other is a complex of physical proteins performing a function then it seems we'd at least overcome the hurdle of nominalism which uses reductionism: Here is a physical explanation of self/other which relies upon an assemblage rather than a cogito -- so the "I think" cannot be a pure, self-seeing clarity unless it is somehow not associated, at all, with the body which makes it up. — Moliere

    The functioning seems to me to be more like a makers mark, or a password, or a signature - in other words it is exactly a biological name/label and arbitrary at that if I read wiki aright.

    And now I'm thinking "tribal markings" as the social equivalent.

    Anyways, the world is indivisible so biology, psychology, sociology, have to create divisions with labels and talk, otherwise everything is mush. 'I am he as you are he as you are me
    And we are all together.'
  • Backroads of Science. Whadyaknow?
    Meanwhile, here's something that could have gone in the climate change thread, but the natives are restless so I think it safer here.



    Note: I have no reason to believe that Philip Prince is any relation to Prince Philip.
  • Backroads of Science. Whadyaknow?
    I found the idea of a protein complex as the basis for self/other fascinating, and still do. — Moliere

    Me too. A case where psychology recapitulates biology.

    To your wiki link. Alas my organic chemistry encompasses the idea that amino acids have an an acidic end and an amine base end, and so can form chains of peptide and poly-peptide. And the rest is a sea of links to a language I do not speak. But I vaguely get that self-recognition is necessary for the immune system, and the implications for transplants and cancers; but the gap in my understanding between basic chemistry and medical principle is too wide to even try a fill at this late stage. I wave my hands and nod wisely, hoping not to have missed something philosophically important.
  • Climate change denial
    Herewith, the future of energy, if we are smart.

  • Friendship & self-trust
    Is this not why it's an extrovert's world? — Hanover

    No. Even, perhaps especially, famous extroverts hide behind dark sunglasses and have people to talk to other people's people for them when regrettably necessary. God preserve us all from the hoi-poloi.

    We like to imagine ourselves broad-minded, sociable, easy-going etc. But nobody has the time or the inclination to even greet every passer by except in what remains of the wilderness, and only there in the really unfrequented regions. Other people are revolting! Don't even look at them! Get a robot for your intimate requirements!
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Wayfarer
    Under either regime.

    Because neither are honest. But the forces of nature require depopulation and the tightening of belts around stomachs and necks. That will happen under any regime, and most of all under a 'do nothing' regime.
  • Friendship & self-trust
    We are far apart; — Abdul

    ↪Abdul Nice. Much appreciated. — Hanover

    When one has a sense of self, of individuality, that very identification keeps one apart. And as we all have that sense, we have the need to be apart, solitary and thus lonely. But the world has become small, and we are become many.

    We are too close.

    Because you are far away, I can acknowledge you and we can begin to communicate; but when I walk down the busy street, I have to ignore everyone completely, and this is the universal condition.

    My neighbours are too close, and are good neighbours only to the extent that there are good fences between us that we both respect.

    Even our own children must sooner or later be expelled from womb or nest or baronial hall, though they are flesh of our flesh. "Go forth my son and seek your fortune".

    Only one who has the luxury of solitude can afford to lament our separation. Most of us are drowning in each other's stink.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    As I said:
    politicians and demagogues are only as powerful as the people let them.
    — Christoffer     — Christoffer

    That is true, but are you suggesting that history teaches that tyrants kings emperors dictators and oppressive regimes in general never prevail for a long time? That is obviously not the case; rather the contrary, such regimes predominate in human history, and justice, democracy, and freedom are rare and fragile.

    But what i am pointing out is that the Democrat narrative is if anything more mendacious than the Trump narrative. There is a real crisis: democrats are simply denying it completely, while Trump acknowledges it, identifies a false cause and cure, and proposes to go back to the good old days.

    What history teaches is that when prosperity is in decline, "the people" will support someone who identifies the problem and provides an easy answer - and especially if the problem is identified as a group of people who can be gotten rid of -immigrants, foreigners, Jews, Arabs, Muslims, barbarians, communists etc etc.

    The problem for "the people" is that there are so many people that are not "the people" but "the others". And whether "the others" are the SS or the Jews is a matter of perspective. The rule is that 'we' are always the good guys, and 'they' are the problem.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    People don't take the time, or they lack the skills, to understand. We will perpetually be at risk of being victimized by demagogues.
    — Relativist

    What you describe is our current post-truth environment. Above your post I've mentioned a few strategies to mitigate it.

    The thing that is important to remember is that politicians and demagogues are only as powerful as the people let them. Even in states of high authoritarianism. What post-truth is doing is slowly eroding society into being more subservient to populists and demagogues, so fighting against post-truth is the way to heal back society into being more able and willing to put leaders under more scrutiny.     — Christoffer

    Here is the truth. Automation has destroyed the power base of the working class. Mass production and mass consumption is no longer necessary to produce a surplus to fund the lifestyle of the wealthy. Climate change is getting expensive and undermining the security of the majority. This cost falls especially on the poor who tend to be underinsured. These things are going to get worse not better, and no government or prospective government can solve the problems. War, pestilence and famine are coming and everyone is going to suffer and many are going to die. Even to ameliorate this as much as possible is going to cost us all great sacrifice of wealth, comfort and freedom.

    You are not going to elect me, or anyone else standing on this platform, therefore your politicians all lie to you.

    And the bigger the lie, the more attractive it is.

    And Trump's narrative already has one truth that people can confirm from their own experience - that things are not on the up, but on the down.
  • Backroads of Science. Whadyaknow?
    All things of creation are children of the Father and thus brothers of man. ... God wants us to help animals, if they need help. Every creature in distress has the same right to be protected. — Francis of Assisi
  • Backroads of Science. Whadyaknow?
    And now— the biology of self, and the selfless organism.

  • Backroads of Science. Whadyaknow?
    ↪Moliere
    Here's a hair-raising tale for you.

  • The dismal state of economics.
    In the long run, one dies. What is rational about self interest? It is like betting on a legless horse that cannot even finish, never mind win.

    Self interest is always naked, and the clothes of rationality cannot be made to fit.

    I believe we are living in an age of syndicalism. You can see it with the banking sector, pharmaceutical industry, and insurance companies, alongside with their push for laws protecting their interests with special-interest groups and lobbying in congress. I actually believe this is a natural tendency of competitive markets — Shawn

    Markets are fundamentally cooperative in the first place; we trade instead of fighting and robbing. We have always lived there. The aristocracy has always understood that the fundamental unit of a population is the dynasty, not the individual. The sensible poor understand that the transformation of their fortunes takes generations and can be achieved if at all, through education and social cohesion.

    I think what you are seeing in the US is the slow death of the American Dream of the self-made, self interested man, which has always been a fantasy. The rage of MAGA is against the end of that dream that has kept the poor in line for so long, and at the same time the use of that rage to destroy the institutions that gave the poor some semblance of power.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Oh dear, I was completely wrong. My deep commiserations! Your government cannot make life much better, but it sure can make it worse.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    You are pointing the finger at me.

    Any contradicting proves me right.
  • Climate change denial
    I don't accept that you can blame everything on CC/GW. When "scientists" blame CC/GW for something it is often hard to prove or disprove it. Many people accept everything that "scientists" say about CC/GW without questioning it.

    I think that the way that "scientists" blame everything on CC/GW has made many people skeptical about CC/GW. This probably partly explains why more is not being done about CC/GW.     — Agree-to-Disagree

    Climate scientists have been saying for many many years in response to questions as to whether this or that weather event is caused by climate change, that it is impossible to say on a day to day scale what is or is not the result of climate change. This is obviously so because weather is chaotic and climate is the generalisation of weather. For example, climate talks about prevailing winds, whereas weather talks about the wind today, or tomorrow.

    But this careful talk has not persuaded you, because you have not been listening charitably to understand, but uncharitably to find fault. This is because you are unwilling to face the facts, or are unable to admit you have mistaken things, or you just like to be contrary, or some other motive.

    Your criticisms are without merit and serve no function in this discussion but to divert, confuse and impede the understanding of the readers.
  • Climate change denial
    https://www.thelancet.com/countdown-health-climate

    Another lamentation for you to download. Or just watch Sir Issac Newton and his pal Paul Beckwith break it all down for you below.


  • Backroads of Science. Whadyaknow?
    ↪Moliere
    Looks interesting. Alas for the disenchanted, they have lost the song and are left with only noise.
  • Climate change denial
    “No doubt about it, these explosive downpours were intensified by climate change,” said Dr Friederike Otto, from Imperial College London, who leads an international group of scientists who try to understand the role that warming plays in these type of events. — Matt McGrath - BBC

    And there is no doubt about it. The sea is warmer, so more moisture evaporates. There is no doubt. That doesn't mean that every disaster is a record breaker, or else climate change isn't happening. :roll:
  • Climate change denial
    I gave plenty of evidence to support my view. — Agree-to-Disagree

    You gave none.
  • Climate change denial
    My point is that "scientists" are not justified in saying that climate change made the 2024 Spanish floods worse. — Agree-to-Disagree

    You are not justified in such a blanket criticism of a rather fulsome explanation of why the area is prone to such floods and a further explanation of how the higher sea temperatures in the mediterranean have made the flood even worse than previously. There is a whole fucking video of justification, you complete cockwomble.
  • In praise of anarchy
    This is true and would be meaningful if there were some way for people to choose not to be part of society — T Clark

    There's no rule that says you get a choice, either. In fact you don't get a choice; you live in an anarchy and people set up governments and mafias everywhere. And they will do it on Mars too as soon as two or three are gathered together there, because that's just the kind of arseholes we are.

    And if you think Musk is something other than a wannabe Mafia Godfather and divine emperor of Mars, you must be already living on the dark side of the moon.
  • In praise of anarchy
    What is anarchy and where has it worked before? — Tom Storm

    I would say that anarchy is the state of no rules, and it is the universal social condition. There are not, nor can there be, any rules that forbid the setting up of any government, and you do not have to obey any governments that set themselves up.

    A slightly more interesting question Is "what is the difference between a government and a mafia?"

    The answer is sometimes, 'little or nothing', but to the extent that there is a difference, it is that in governments, power itself is limited and tempered by justice, by bureaucratic tradition, by honour and moral fibre, and by democratic limitations. And possibly there can be other features - you tell me...
  • A -> not-A
    ↪Count Timothy von Icarus


    Fair point. Ok, I concede; "obviously" was a misspoken epithet on my part.
  • A -> not-A
    The first premise isn't actually a contradiction — Michael

    Nor is my first premise. I think my argument is valid and sound, and expresses the principle of explosion. Similar nonsense results when you divide by zero, and you can disguise that division in a similar way with a bit of algebra. Obviously the universe is the result of God accidentally contradicting Himself by making a mistake, which He cannot do, being infallible. Explains everything!
  • A -> not-A
    ↪Benkei


    If contradiction, then anything.
    contradiction.
    therefore anything.
  • A -> not-A
    Valid, but unsound.

    1. is a conditional contradiction.
    2. fulfils the condition'

    And from a contradiction, anything and everything follows. This is the principle of explosion.

    That is to say, "1. A -> not-A" is impossible; when the impossible can happen, anything can happen.
  • Climate change denial
    When are "scientists" going to start reducing the rate at which they are increasing CO2 levels? COP29, the taxpayer funded annual holiday for climate scientists, is about to start. How many plane flights and private jet trips will this entail? — Agree-to-Disagree

    This is a very feeble ad hominem, even by your low standards. Some scientists do more than others. They need to communicate with the world and with governments because one cannot do much alone, without changing the infrastructure and regulatory system.

    ↪javi2541997
    Here is Paul Beckwith again talking about the tragedy in Spain.

  • Backroads of Science. Whadyaknow?
    ↪Nils Loc
    They're rather jolly. Such extravagant displays can only evolve in an environment of plenty where the quality of the genes is all important and assistance with chick-rearing is not important. I guess the junior members of the troop are trainees the star of the show. Just another day of trying to work out what she wants...
  • Backroads of Science. Whadyaknow?
    Completely off topic today, but we need cheering up.

  • Climate change denial
    Paul Beckwith discusses the latest World Meteorological Organization Report on the atmosphere CO2 etc. levels. I'm sure politicians and economists are going to take measures to start reducing the rate at which we are increasing these levels really soon, and if they haven't actually committed to reducing our contribution to zero well I'm sure they will be doing that as well one of these days. But stopping increasing the rate is the first step to take, and we probably need to do that quite urgently now.

    Have a nice day, while you still can.

    https://library.wmo.int/records/item/69057-no-20-28-october-2024

    https://library.wmo.int/viewer/69057/download?file=GHG-20_en.pdf&type=pdf&navigator=1

Home » unenlightened