By what else could the social agreement be enforced? — Agustino

That's quite funny. I'm inclined to admit that nothing can be enforced without violence.
But then I would suggest that if we agree, we don't need to enforce anything.

I don't see that as a threat. It's communicating to them how you will react to their actions so that they are aware of it and can take it into account when deciding what to do. — Agustino

If how you will react is violent, then communicating that is a threat. That's what it means to threaten. If you disagree, I will bite your head off.

I don't understand how the world you're proposing will ever work out. — Agustino

I haven't proposed a world. I have merely pointed out and lamented that the world that we live in is founded on violence. As it is, my tomatoes are right on the street, and any passer-by can take them, and I do not defend them. And if you happened to be passing, and were hungry, I would not think it a violence if you took one, though I would if you took them all.

There is nothing violent about me saying that if you steal my property, I will defend it. — Agustino

It's not your property, it's mine, because the world belongs to me, and since you have already stolen it, there is, according to your logic, nothing violent about my recovering it and defending it from you.

This is nonsense isn't it? Because a thing is not mine simply because I say so, it is mine by social agreement. And the social agreement is enforced by the threat and use of violence against those who fail to agree.

I don't think we do. I think you are trying to justify violence and pretend it is peace.

I cannot peacefully put a gun to your head and demand you agree. I am using the weapon against you, even if I do not fire it.

It's peaceful as long as the violence is only a threat. — andrewk

No it isn't. If I stand guard over my tomatoes with a big stick, that is violent even if everyone keeps out of my way. Threats of violence are violence; peace is not threatening.

it is the threat of violence on our behalf by the armed forces and police that allows people like you and I that have been granted the rare privilege of a peaceful life, to continue to have that privilege. — andrewk

Then it is not a peaceful life, is it? I pay you to be violent for me, and then claim to be peaceful. That's bollocks. Fake news.

It is hard to argue that armed forces are not necessary to a peaceful life, as Hanover pointed out. I think of them as a necessary evil. — andrewk

No it isn't. Armed forces are completely useless to a peaceful life, and only function in a violent life.

Hurrah!
And then there are the big sticks that do not look so good on television, and where the hurrahs ring hollow.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/30/british-intelligence-officers-linked-to-man-waterboarded-83-times-mi6-cia-rendition?CMP=fb_gu

There's more to gain than there is to lose by switching. — Michael

The intuitive solution is that the bigger the amount in your envelope is, the more likely it is to be the one with 2X. — BlueBanana

So the paradox arises because in practice there is a range of X. The lower bound is the smallest denomination of currency, and the upper bound is something less than half all the money in the world.

In practice the bounds are tighter, because the psychology department, or the entertainment industry has a budget, and also needs to make the bet a bit interesting. If the envelope contains less than £5, who really gives a fuck. If it is happening on a regular basis, the upper bound is- hundreds, maybe thousands, depending. So intuition has accessed extra information that mathematics is not privy to.

If there were no upper limit, it would always be a good bet to switch, but there must be a limit.

Imagine a slightly different game. You get an envelope with X, and then you can choose another envelope from 2, with 'double it' and 'halve it'. Then it is clear that whatever X is, it's a good bet to take a second envelope. No paradox.

Is the notion of a mental state coherent? Consistent? — Banno

I'm in two minds about it. How fucked is that?

Do we need this to be nailed down? I think it works as a vague finger pointing thing - she a bit upset, - his ceramic is cracked. So I'll pull myself together, buck my ideas up and declare it to apply only to other people. The kitchen is in a state at the moment and other people's minds are frequently in a state. Me, I have thoughts and feeling, both of which are wonderful, even when they are miserable.

the truth is that those tools of mass destruction and death you saw on display form a good part of the reason you are so safe. — Hanover

Always nice to have the truth pointed out to one. Indeed, my big stick is my security against your big stick or some other bugger's big stick. And the bigger the stick, the more secure. Hurrah for big sticks, therefore!

Could you share the story? Or would you rather not? — frank

I'd rather not, and in any case, I used to be the ban-meister-in-chief back on the old site, so it may be that I have a certain elder-statesman status that makes it a bit different for me. But here instead are some words of wisdom, because you are quite right to be concerned about these things.

Firstly, sites like this are tyrannies, not democracies, and the site owner rules absolutely. Secondly, there is no justice system, but an editorial one.

So the final recourse of us peasants is only to find or create somewhere more congenial to cast our pearls, or put up with the foibles of the local executive.

But in the meantime, we assume that our dictator is benevolent and seeks to appoint benevolent servants. I'm pretty confident that such is the case here, and by and large, the regime succeeds in fostering a lively debating community with a minimum of unpleasantness and folly. I think it should be encouraging that a couple of mods have been found unsuitable for the task and reduced to the ranks.

From the pov of the administration, as the site expands, they can no longer be on top of everything, and have to rely more and more on their undercover agents, which you can join by flagging stuff that needs attention. Since, by hypothesis, the administration is benevolent, they are concerned to know from us what we think needs attention. If nobody ever complains, they will think they and the site are perfect.

So flagging, pms, and feedback are important ways to influence them and guide the conduct of the site, as petitions to the tyrant and his minions. At the same time, one should be a little cautious not to get a reputation as a constant moaner and unreliable witness, who will likely be ignored.

In the case of a thread being moved, merged, or some such decision, I would think a reasoned appeal by pm is the best course, though I will just come out and say that I do not believe that there is such a thing as 'the philosophy of Trump'. (I think that is your current concern?) But hopefully, such matters can be discussed and minds can change or not without any acrimony. Its not a personal matter on either side, is it?

So say what you want and don't want, complain about decisions you disagree with, argue politely, and then don't bang on forever about it, but decide to live with it or not.

Here endeth the old fart ramble.

Oh yes. But I don't always get what I want.

I treat them exactly the same as an ordinary cabbie.

They're grounded in something very real, human conduct, desires and aversions, and their purpose is determined by what those making and enforcing laws want to achieve regarding those things. — Ciceronianus the White

Well we agree, I think; I called that 'social relations'. I say it is arbitrary in the sense that we could reward homicide instead of punishing it, or we could regard it as a merely regrettable foible.

Consider: a scientist may say that science is nothing more than what scientists do. — Moliere

There's a sense in which this is true of any practice: medicine is what medics do. But it's unhelpfully circular. I think it is worth trying to distinguish medicine from quackery, science from crack-pttery, law from tyranny and mafia codes.

Cicero's emphasis on enforcement is interesting, because it does not distinguish the legal system from the Mafia at all.

the late Stephen Hawking declared:“Philosophy is dead” — David Jones

'The unexamined life is not worth living', said Socrates, which is to say that philosophy is the examination of life. And from where is one to examine life, but from the point of view of death? So philosophy has always been dead, and practical men have always despised it and got on with their unexamined lives.

I disagree. — Marcus de Brun

What I want to point out is that in dream, if one is scared, one is scared of oneself (no one and nothing else is there). Which is to say that being scared simply is being scary, so being scared of being scary is a bind that holds one to being scary and being scared.

In the real world, it comes to the same thing; to be scared of being scary is to bind oneself - the opposite of freedom - it is also to be scared of oneself.

So I want to say very firmly and clearly that there is no escape from oneself, absolutely none. So this fear cannot act, except to run in circles trying to get away from itself like a dog running away from its tail. If that is seen very clearly and completely, it is the end of fear.

Don't be scared of being scary.

Hurrah, solipsism! — Posty McPostface

Solipsim is true in dreams: the first principle of dream interpretation is 'everything in the dream is you.' Especially the monsters. That is the difference between dream and reality, that the monsters of reality have taken on a life of their own, and post stuff you would never think of.

I think a distinction can be made between modern post-industrial globalism and ‘Western Civliisation’. — Wayfarer

Of course it can, and if you make such a distinction, that western civilisation is the good stuff, and the bad stuff is uncivilised, or un western, then the answer is easy and comfortable. I don't know what the Cultural Revolution has to do with it, except that it is another disaster, (arguably heavily influenced by western thought).

But a culture that has demon spawn has at least to admit to supping with the devil with a too short spoon.

Law is what you must deal with, what you must comply with or evade (legally of course). It's the problem you want to resolve, the thing you want to take advantage of, something you'd like to see repealed, in the here and now. — Ciceronianus the White

It sounds just like a tiger, or a mountain. Approaching from the depths of ignorance, it looks to me as if law is already philosophy, in the sense that it is the formalisation of social relations, etiquette ossified. 'Pass the port to the left' - 'drive on the right'.

Your claim understandably makes the law into a material affair (reification) but the fact is, there is no 'must' about it, one can very easily break the law, and it is the inherent fragility of its every stricture that is it's essence. The laws of physics are what one must comply with or evade and they rule with or without formal statute; not so the laws of men, which are arbitrary in nature.

It's not all bad:

https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/de/-high-level-conference-cultural-heritage-in-europe---linking-past-and-future---special-guests-jean-michel-jarre-composer-performer-and-record-producer-and-daniel-barenboim-pianist-and-conductor--_I157472_02-V_rv

We're getting ready for his visit.

It's always encouraging to find oneself in a minority of one. Here's how I rationalise my insanity.

I take 'Western civilisation' to encompass the colonisation of the rest of the world, the industrial revolution, and thereby current global politics. To start with the obvious - climate change, and the Holocene extinction. I won't even argue it.

Then there is the cultural devastation in Africa, the far East and Australia, and the Americas. Also obvious.

And then the culture itself, which glorifies greed and violence, and alienates its own people from nature and each other. The global village is a lonely place, and the population is miserable and insane, and increasingly, homeless.

don't think though that a complex has an extra bit that's on or off; — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, that was a tad "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" and exactly the kind of thing W wants to 'sort out'. A picture does not contain its own truth... still, its truth status is a matter of atomic fact, and that's what I was trying to point to.

What we have here is a galumphing gallimaufry. Hence psychogalosophy.

Doing my best to follow all this, and if the following ramble is not helpful, ignore it.

I'm hearing a prefiguring of the digital; logical space as the virtual world, atomic fact as a bit. This would explain why W. cannot define or give an example of an atomic fact. "The cat is on the mat." is a complex (picture?), which might have the addition of an extra atomic fact, (T) or (F). A picture is an array of bits, so is a sentence. Any bit can be changed independently of any other bit, but the resulting array may not make sense any more, to say nothing of its truth.

And the virtual world is the world of language and thought, where babes are hot or not, cats are on or off mats, wardrobes lead or do not lead to Narnia, and so on.

I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper!...... I fart in your general direction! . Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

I knew a chap had a large farm - a mountain really, no use for crops. He kept horses and left them wild. The thing about horses is that the dominant male kills his own male offspring given the chance. So you have a herd of one stallion, and any number of mares.
One might intervene to prevent breeding and let the herd cease to exist, or to save the male foals and keep them elsewhere, or to control the population by killing and eating some to keep the numbers such that they do not starve, or something else.

I cannot see how the principle of utility even begins to direct one to the greatest good. The farmer is like God, ordaining what shall happen, and utility cannot be God's morality, because He has no need to create at all. Is a horse better than no horse? Or creation better than nothingness? Perhaps goats would be better?

I am a woman, with XX chromosomes, I am capable of being pregnant and birth. — Terran Imperium

My first wife couldn't be pregnant because of complications breaking her hip in a car accident. She never felt like a 'real woman' and eventually killed herself. My current wife cannot get pregnant either, because she is post-menopausal. I think if you want to be a doctor, you need to get used to the varieties of real humans that you will have to try and help, and not try and force them into your own categories of what they ought to be. You will do much harm otherwise. Chromosomes, hormones, brain-type, orientation of desire, and fertility are not always aligned as you seem to imagine.

Most utilitarian ethicists believe that we have to vegan as it benefits other animals more than eating meat benefits us. — amirography

There is a fundamental problem. Utility presupposes the beneficiary. One cannot consider the benefit of life to a dog, only the relative benefit of one life over another. One can readily reduce the suffering of cows by not eating meat and thereby reducing the number of cows, but by the same logic, one becomes an anti-natalist, and in favour in principle of ending all life.

You might like to look at Deep Ecology for a better starting point.

Did you look at my link, Tom? Because my intention was to show the utter futility and offensiveness of scoring political points with other people's lives. Good Samaritans are always and everywhere in short supply, and almost always out of office.

Sure, but the reality of the psychological effect of birth trauma is speculative. — Janus

It's speculative if you have no memory, but if you have some memory, it is experiential.

where the known ends, the unknown begins; so I don't see much of a significant distinction there. — Janus

I don't think you can even say that much. Possibly something begins, possibly not. From the pov of facing annihilation, of being squeezed out of existence, the unknown, in the form of bright lights and towels and breasts and noise is way beyond imagination - to say that death is the beginning of the unknown is to pretend to a knowledge that cannot be had by definition.

But I think I'd better shut up myself now, and let Heidegger deal with his problems his own way.

While Trump is making babies cry, here in Europe we have a more robust approach to the problem of immigration.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/the-list-europe-migrant-bodycount?CMP=fb_gu

I suppose I am saying that solipsism is the philosophy of the unborn; until the first contraction, there is no reason to distinguish self and world. The world as womb first imposes itself by crushing rejection, and birth is the death of the solipsist.

As to biological birth and death, in case that is what you have in mind, I can't see how fear of those could be the same since one is in the past and the other in the future. — Janus

Most people cannot remember their birth, and this makes what I am saying hard to relate to, but yesterday's cup of coffee is much like tomorrow's cup of coffee. The trauma of birth is the terror of annihilation - the fear is of the ending of the known, rather than of the unknown. And death is the ending of the known.

I guess when you look back to an unremembered birth it appears un-traumatic, even joyful - the opposite of death. But it is a theoretical view, not an experiential one.

So, nothing more can be said about what's 'beyond the personal'. — Posty McPostface

nothing is beyond it — unenlightened

Hi Posty. What's the difference between 'nothing' and 'nothing more'?
The way my arithmetic works, 0 + 0 = 0

As an aside: I normally frown heavily on the psychologising of philosophy, but in this case exceptionally I think it is legitimate, because the philosophy is itself founded on the psychological phenomenon of dread, so my claim that its source is misidentified is pertinent.

Whenever an existential choice or commitment is made — Janus

Do you mean like when I just chose to make coffee, the possibility of tea slipped away from the personal? I'm not clear what an existential choice is as distinct from a non-existential one...

Because it seems that the no-tea is entirely personal, whereas coffee is for sharing and the aroma wafts up the stairs and wakens my lover.

To be a bit more radical, the fear of death and the fear of birth are the same.

I don't agree with first sentence tho. — csalisbury

Curious. If I were a solipsist, I would say, 'all being is personal, nothing is beyond it.'

Why is something like birth trauma possible? I think the question - why does anything exist - reaches beyond the personal, even though the personal is our way in. — csalisbury

Being reaches beyond the personal, not-being does not. The dreadful is the closing in. That is why the question is a reawakening of the trauma and not of the reaching beyond of birth.

Well there's the necessary conditions for asking, the necessary conditions for sense, and the necessary conditions for imagining. All different. 'What would it be like if there was nothing?' is something one can ask - given that there is something - das ein. But to give an answer would be folly; 'Shut up!' is an appropriate response. 'There's nothing like nothing.'

I think I'm going back to my psychological analysis. The shock of the womb expelling, crushing, like Monty Python's foot forever stamping you out of existence, and into the unimaginable world. It's not a question, it's a trauma.

The unimaginable (to dasfoetus) world brings into being the unimaginable possibility of non-existence. what is born, is already not what was - is already mourning the death of the womb-.world.