Anyone would think you wanted 'them' to make up their own minds about shit.

Judith Butler is worth a read, I think.

One part of it (the problem, that is) is the multiculuralist notion of ethnic group rights (although that's not so significant in assimilationist France). — jamalrob

Way back around the time of the Falklands war - the good old days - I lived in The deep south of France in a half abandoned mountain village. Even there, there was a clearly defined 'Moroccan quarter', a collection of rather temporary looking prefabs. As representatives of 'the Allies', of course there was no question of our being housed there; a place became available in the main village, although we were very poor.

Not much has changed in forty years. Assimilation is something that they have to do, which does not then oblige us in turn to modify our racism.

For me it was a great place to live, but now I have a mixed-race partner, I would not consider living in France. As far as I can see the multiculturalist/assimilationist debate is vacuous; the reality is not on the same planet as the rhetoric, and this is the experience that leads folks to a place where they are content to die in the hope of having some effect on the world.

Incidentally, has anyone noticed that it is impossible to punish or revenge oneself on a suicide bomber? It's so frustrating!

This interview with Alice Miller seems relevant to the psychology of fascism.

The prosecutor said earlier that a body was found so riddled with bullets that made it difficult to identify - which turned out to be Abaaoud.

Telegraph

This is what is known as 'overkill'. Overkill is a disproportionate response that is the standard means of control of the fascist mind-set. It is the essence of terrorism. I hope it will be considered that perhaps fascism is not merely something that one opposes in others, but that it is something one needs to see in oneself.

I think of the state as an entity which is more than the sum of its parts. — Moliere

It's a collection of interests -- and it's goodness or badness is relative to what extent it represents your interests. — Moliere

You disagree - but you agree? I say that to the extent that people care about each others' interests, they will have a good state, and to the extent that they care only about their own, they will have a bad state. To measure the goodness of the state according to one's own interests is inherently despotic.

I don't see the state as being fundamentally other than the people that compose it. Unfortunately we are untrustworthy arseholes who callously disregard each others' interests.

It's unfortunate that pious poetry and monuments do not suffice to sustain virtue. It has, like bread, to be remade each day. One would like to do one's bit and then rest in the warmth of one's goodness memorialised, or, even better, the goodness of the ancestors. But one can only rent virtue; the freehold is not available.

It's the only way to keep God out of your head.

I would say that a through h are all approximately true, but none of them negate the fact of democracy. It's a crap democracy where the politicians truly represent the people - greedy, ignorant, short-sighted, vindictive, self-serving and corrupt.

There is nothing inherently decent about democracy. At the moment, I'd say Germany is doing a bit better than most, but that may be because it is less democratic, I'm not sure.

Ok, 'hello' can be translated, or at least has it's equivalent functors in other languages or in English. But it does not refer to anything specific. — John

That seems to support the thesis that meaning does not require reference, but only function.

On the other hand, my old buggy buddy here can only be understood, it seems to me, as referring to a leaf. A one word language of camouflage? Or perhaps one could better say that reference does not require language either?

Isn't this a philosophical statement? — darthbarracuda

Any statement that takes 'we' as the subject is a political statement. Otherwise known as 'virtual welding'.

I'm not seeing nearly enough welds in this thread. It is clearly dominated by philosophers. Think how much better it would be, stronger and more solid, if the posts were properly welded instead of being cobbled together with flimsy ideas.

I have a position on this. I always treat the dream as real until I wake up.

It's declared a contradiction because where x is G the given rule ∀x: G ↔ C(x) ∧ ¬x becomes G ↔ C(G) ∧ ¬G. — Michael

Indeed. But where is x G? First, x wasn't G and everything was fine, and then becomes G.

Why do we need to resolve the contradiction? — Michael

We need to resolve it because we want to use expressions of the form ∀x: G ↔ C(x) ∧ ¬x all the time.

In the good old days, science was known as 'natural philosophy'. Life was simpler back then, and these questions were not asked.

The very condition that his nose grows if and only if he claims any falsehood is logically impossible. The paradox only arises when you insist on a contradiction being true, but that's not surprising. — Michael

This won't do. It is declared a contradiction only because a paradox arises. When you then explain the paradox as arising because there is a contradiction taken to be true, you have rather gone in a circle.

There is good reason to suppose that there is no infallible truth detector possible. But suppose there were, and Pinocchio's nose was such, then in such a world, there would I suggest be no paradox. And it is precisely because of the time element, that you have tried to eliminate. Causes must precede effects, and so there will be a feedback loop created such that the nose will begin to grow, and almost immediately stop, and almost immediately start again, round and round.

It is only in the timeless world of logic that such feedback becomes a contradiction demanding both states at once.

Now where's my old sig gone? Ah yes...

Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought. — John Cowper Powys

Picasso said the same about art, in respect of the cave paintings of Lascaux. It was all there from the beginning.

But the religion of progress is a fairly recent degeneration; the ancients always presumed that the golden age had passed.

Do you really need a definition of progress? We can assume that something on the order of mysteries revealed, questions answered, new mysteries opened up, new questions formulated, would be what progress would look like.

I think I would say that philosophy is generally in the business of disenchantment. So from my point of view the heroes are the sceptics rather than the builders of grand theories, and since there is always another builder with another grand theory, there is always work to do, but it is always a demolition job, and that is why there is no progress. We never quite become completely disenchanted, and so never quite return to the golden age.

Very interesting. Do you think you could rack your brain as to where this does indeed come from? I would be very interested to know. — Thorongil

I think to answer that would be to reinsert it back into the causal chain, and deprive it of freedom. If i take a modern analogy, a computer world is determined, as in programmed, but it takes input from 'a player'. If you look as it were from inside the game, there is no magic, and thus no freedom; the player's input appears to be part of the character's program. If there is freedom, then from the inside of the world, one can only say that it happens in the moment, and comes from - nowhere? elsewhere?

In short, do not attempt to tie down freedom, or catch running water in a bucket.

These damn commies with their functionalist approach. :-}

The function of dear Mr Lear
Is to vanquish the very idea
That art must be done
For rum-tiddle-um-dum
Or any such nonsense, so there.

I wouldn't give the U.S.P.D the pass because of culture. It's so clearly fucked up and crazy. I suppose I live in the U.S., so I can understand the hesitancy [I'm generally less critical of other countries, just because I know I know very little about them], but it's nice to have counter-examples like this. — Moliere

Well it's not all bad in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqi10h0Tg_U

Looking at the comments on the first video, it seems there is a different kind of expectation from the public, that cannot stand the uncertainty of this guy with a machete being there for a minute. Instant resolution, and an instant othering that divides the world into decent and monstrous. I think the cops are a reflection as well as a support for the culture, so a move away from this is not straightforward. Which is why I suppose I wanted to share this, and ask the question of civilians. I don't know this guy and I certainly don't want him on the streets in this condition, but he really doesn't have to be dead.

When I talk about trust, this is what I mean. You remained "faithful," you trusted that things would turn out successfully, even though you believed otherwise. This was so, right up until the moment that a particular action was taken, at which point your faith had finally ebbed away.

Rather than being an account of the action in question - which is actually independent of whether or not you had faith (you could have taken the action you did, but still thought things would turn out successfully. You could have lost all trust but decided otherwise to what you did), faith is actually an expression that, for the moment, you have trust in something. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes I see. Perhaps I should say rather that faith is expressed in action, and belief in words. 'Belief', 'faith', and 'trust' are related and the distinctions are blurred in common parlance. I think you are teasing them apart slightly differently here. I would put trust closer to belief: I trust you if I believe you are honest, and not otherwise, but I can be faithful to you without trusting you. Although, thinking about it, perhaps I am being faithful, not to you so much as to an idea of what you ought to be.

But your way of talking works as well. The significance of all this for the thread, however we express it, is that while action can be guided by belief, it is not necessarily determined by belief. So a lack of free will concerning beliefs does not defeat my freedom to act.

@Monitor Ball park - faith is putting your balls on the line.

Or for the religious:

Beliefs are what you recite in a creed, faith is what extra you need to recite it amongst the infidel.

I have in the back of my mind a situation I was in recently that you may have heard about, where I remained faithful without much belief for some time. In that case my faith kept me from jumping (metaphorically) until the (metaphorical) rope was well and truly cut. ;)

I think that's what they are taking issue with. How can the action someone takes be or not be? It's a contradiction. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'm not sure I understand. One chooses to jump or not to jump. One's choice determines the act. Once one has chosen, one has acted and there is no choice any more. There is indeed only one act; one cannot jump and not jump. One has faith, or one does not.

@Monitor You seem to be agreeing with me despite yourself. Faith is the act of putting your money where your mouth might or might not be.

It's the chickens, isn't it. I warned them about the chickens.

Farewell. (L)

Can you make a decision with one without the presence of the other? I see this all conflated or subsumed into premise, which is not objective truth, so it's only power / meaning comes from your activation of it. — Monitor

Well consider the first time bungee jumper. Reason believes it is safe; the viscera 'believe' it is certain death, and he jumps, or else does not jump. Neither he nor we can determine his decision in advance. He might jump thinking 'I'm going to die', or he might refuse, thinking 'it's perfectly safe'.

With such a small sample size, I would say that even 95% is hardly conclusive. If you can get the funding on the basis of this, I suggest an eggsaustive field study would settle the matter.

Interesting... so one may have faith even if they don't believe so long as they step on the bridge and cross? — Agustino

For example, I might not quite believe that someone is on the level, but 'give them the benefit of the doubt', and treat them as though they are. I don't have to believe that Christ is alive in every man to act as if he is, though I dare say belief would make it a tad easier. To put it very starkly, faith is how one lives, and belief is what one thinks, and there is not a necessary connection.

I don't remember where it comes from, but there is a distinction I like between belief and faith. Belief, that this bridge will support my weight, say, may range from a 'possibly' to a 'probably' to a 'certainly'. Faith is stepping onto the bridge and crossing the chasm. Faith remains a choice even if belief is determined by experience. Thus I do not much believe in justice, seeing little of it, but I try to be faithful to it nonetheless.

I'm not going to say a word about my final exchange with a certain eric on another forum. I have totally transcended that place. :-x

Where's fucking head-bang smile gone?

Well I expected it wouldn't be possible, but I always thought that it was a bit too easy to sign up and spout off in pf. Good posters tend to lurk a bit anyway. Open is good, but some kind of speed hump? Actually, needing approval would work - you give it every time, but they have to wait a bit. If it's flagged up in advance, most spammers won't bother to sign up.

I don't know if the software will allow it, but come the day when there are uninvited newbies, and therefore spammers of course, it might be convenient to place some restriction on them; either a first post moderation before publication, or else a requirement to be on the site for a half-hour, say (to give them time to read those guidelines and look at a few threads). The latter, particularly, would help to set the tone, and really annoy the spammers, by wasting more of their time than they waste of ours.

Excellent point. What, then, qualifies as creativity? — Sentient

Also here though, the issue becomes by which 'standards' one judges (quality). Is something contrarian by nature 'rubbish'? — Sentient

To tie this in a nice tight knot, I can simply say that creativity is non-standard. Thus whatever standard one has is inadequate. Here is something new and the judgement of quality has to start from scratch. One has, as it were, to look with new eyes at a new thing.

What does not follow from this though is that every new thing is good. One makes a judgement, and if it is good, then one can analyse it and derive standards, methods, and so on from it. If it is bad, one can similarly analyse and derive negative standards, things to avoid. Such standards are not the rules by which one judges, but part of the repertoire of the artist, to be used, played with, bent, and transcended.

I was attempting taking a step back and firstly deciding what even qualifies as 'a work of art' before being able to decide on its merits. — Sentient

One might with some justification suggest that creativity is an essential ingredient. And this gives rise to a problem; one cannot specify it in advance. Pirsig has much of interest to say about this. It is the nature of originality to break with tradition, to make its own rules.

But I think the problem for art at the moment is that this has been adopted as the only criterion of quality. And this means there is no way to distinguish creative genius from contrarian rubbish. Pirsig would say, I think, that the judgement of quality comes first, and then one derives by analysis the criteria, the rules, the definitions, but only after the event as it were.

I would say that art is like wine. It's all a matter of taste, but taste is a matter of fact. There are great wines at great prices, for which one needs a sensitive palate to get the full value. Then there is vin ordinere, perfectly good enough for peasants like me. Bad wine should be thrown away, it is undrinkable, worthless.
Alcoholics will drink the undrinkable, but they are to be pitied.

I would like to see some ads please, so I don't have to feel guilty about my poverty and meanness.

One thing that seems a bit lacking here is transparency. I think it was important to the atmosphere at pf that one could see the banned list, the editor of edited posts, deleted posts and threads, and so on. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and so on.

Perhaps what facilities are unavailable in the format could be substituted for in a thread, ideally only postable to by staff, - moderating events/decisions. I'd also like to see posting guidelines and moderating guidelines. At the moment, 'everyone knows' that the principles are broadly those of pf, but there will be newbies, and it would be good to get these things established before they are needed.

Oh, I noticed cuthbert over there; anyone invited him?

I might be up for a job in a while, but I need a holiday first. But I'll be turning my attention more this way, and see what you've all been up to.