Number one, in the US government, does not tell the people what to do. The people tell government what to do. This is the meaning of a patriotic defense. Only when we accept a war is our patriot duty and the will of God does our congress agree to a war. Schools and the media were used to get US citizens to agree to the war. — Athena

You realize this is contradictory, right? Americans decide for themselves, yet schools and media tell Americans what to decide.

The Prussians took control of Germany following the 30 years war, and they central public education and focused it on technology for military and industrial purposes. The US did not have the typist, mechanics, and engineers need for modern warfare, because our education was about citizenship, and Americanizing immigrants, not vocational training. We did not have the trained manpower for a modern war. — Athena

That didn't change before the US entered the war. It was after entering that the US rapidly set up what would become the most powerful military in the world. They could have started that process in 1914.

I am spent years studying this stuff, and because what I say is not in agreement with what everyone knows, I the person who doesn't know what she is talking about. — Athena

It'd help if you didn't paint history with a broad brush and made absurdly sounding claims like "vocational training is training for slaves".

Do you see a difference between colonial behaviors and the major powers paring for war against each other? — Athena

Sure. Imperial Germany's naval expansion was the great blunder of the 20th century. But you're forgetting that, while Britain did not have a large land army, France and Russia did. And it was the fear of the "Russian Steamroller", together with the characteristically Prussian penchant for fast and decisive military action regardless of the risks, that lead to Schlieffen.

Would an idea disappear if two things happened: humans disappeared, or we no longer collectively believed in the idea. So the US Constituition exists because we all agree to accept it as fact, though it is obviously not a fact. It’s an agreed upon fiction.

An idea is a fiction. — Brett

But then would technology disappear if all humans either disappeared or stopped believing in technology? A spear would still be a spear, at least in the latter case. A spear is technology. Does it stop being technology if we stop using the word?

Ideas must have evolved over time. What an idea is itself must have evolved. — Brett

Must they? Isn't evolution just another idea? If all ideas are fiction, then so is evolution, and the idea that ideas evolve...

The idea that what we think comes from the mind helps in creating a sense of stability, but it’s neither true or stable. The mind’s reflection on itself is inherently unstable and so too the ideas as a result. — Brett

Yet if what we think doesn't come from the mind, where does it come from?

By this I guess you’re suggesting that the mind is the source, or core, of what we are. But that doesn’t do it for me because the mind is still an idea. You equate “self” and “mind” in your quote by Descartes. Are they both the same thing? — Brett

I think the self is the fiction. The self isn't stable or monolithic. But the mind is real. It's the most real thing there is, since even doubt requires the mind. That's what remains of Descartes: I think, therefore something thinks thoughts that appear as mine. That something we call "mind".

There is no way the US would have entered the first world war if schools and the media had not convinced the population that the US had to defend democracy. The US was isolationist and did not want to get involved. The US was protected by an ocean in the west and an ocean on the east and did not feel threatened by a land invasion. The technology for airfare was not well developed. It did not have enough trained typists, engineers, mechanics for war and didn't have that many people enlisted in military service. — Echarmion

Yeah, so why did the media convince an isolationist populace? Idealism for democracy? Possible, but then why not enter earlier? A more likely rationale is that, apart from pro-democratic sentiment, which certainly existed, there was also the matter of all the credit given to England and France. If they lost, that money would be gone. So there was a strong economic incentive to intervene. And America's behaviour in the interwar period was almost entirely focused on their economic interests.

Please share your source of that information so it can be discussed. There was a lot of defending of colonies but that was far from being prepared to fight off an invasion with an army equal to Germany's army. — Athena

I recommend "The Sleepwalkers" by Christopher Clark. But that all the european nations where gearing up for war in the early 20th century really is common (among people interested in the period) knowledge. You can probably read it on Wikipedia.

That seems a strange thing to say. We would be speaking German if at the beginning of WWI we had not rushed to bring our nation up to the level of German military technology and this includes bureaucratic technology that has radically changed politics! In 1916, our education had nothing to do with technology and vocational training. It was all about literature and culture. So here we are in lulla land totally unprepared for modern warfare, and Germany was swallowing up one country after another. This technology is as much about bureaucratic technology as it is about weapons. — Athena

Germany, in world war 1, didn't "swallow up one country after another". They didn't even get to Paris. America entered that war not to protect it's democracy, but to protect it's economic interests.

Charles Sarolea wrote a book warning the world Germany was mobilizing for war and his book was ignored until WWI began. — Athena

All of Europe was mobilizing for war in the early 20th century. That's a major reason there WW1 started.

quote="Athena;433888"]Our lives were not all about money before the war and we did respect our elders, and no one of quality would be as disrespectful as you. Lawyers were lawyers because of a love of justice, and doctors were doctors because of a love of healing, and teachers were teachers because of a love of our nation and teaching, and reporters thought they were defending our democracy with their reporting. You didn't live that past so why do you think you know it?[/quote]

Unless you are 106, you didn't live that past either.

I do believe in animal welfare though. It is morally ok for us to eat meat if the meat is properly sourced and the animals are not simply being locked up in cages and being fed nothing but steroids. — Grievous

Why? Lions don't care about the welfare of antelopes. Plenty of animals kill slowly with debilitating poison, or even divesting their prey alive.

If what's natural is what's right, you're being inconsistent.

Buddhas of Bamyan: The Taliban were good at cancel culture — jgill

Are the statues of Confederate generals put up around 1900 important historical artifacts to you?

How can technology be part of the outside world? The perception and truth of the outside world has changed with our mind’s perception of things. Technology is an idea. — Brett

What is an idea? Is every name given to some category - tree, rock, cat, computer, an idea?

That’s not quite what I said. The collection of fictions refers to my thoughts on technology. — Brett

Technology is just a part of the outside world. I don't quite see the distinction.

That’s my point. All things we think of are fictions. What else could they be? — Brett

What does that even mean? It's not enough to call it a fiction. What reality are you comparing it to? If there is fiction, there has to be fact as well.

I am not sure the thought experiment actually demonstrates anything about whether things apart from pleasure have intrinsic value. What it does demonstrate is that a lot of people treat other things as having intrinsic value. Whether or not the latter has a bearing on the former depends on what you think "intrinsic" value even is.



The follow-up question that comes to mind is whether you'd be fine with a machine that basically just induces a single moment of ecstasy and then you die. The machine won't necessarily kill you, you just won't notice the passage of time since you'd experience unchanging maximum pleasure. We'll assume that the rest of the universe is taken care of.

In fact it’s like there’s nothing there in the human mind at all. The idea, the fiction, is not the mind it’s a creation of the mind. So even the mind is a creation of the mind, another fiction. — Brett

Not sure how that follows from in anything written above. Even if the outside world is merely a collection of fictions that happens to fit together, the same isn't necessarily true for the inside world, the self. And the obvious question is how something can create a fiction of itself. That seems contradictory.

Applying terms like "fiction" or "illusion" to epistemic problems is often little more than rhetoric. What does it mean for the mind to be a "fiction"? What reality are we referencing to apply that label?

I don’t recall that phrase exactly from Kant, so can you elaborate on that? — Pfhorrest

Kant's "groundwork" doesn't so much start with the question "what should I do" as it starts with the question "how can I be free". The categorical imperative is arrived at as the form of the "general law" that one must follow to be free of the vagaries of circumstance.

So "You should drive on the left" is a moral claim? — Isaac

It could be. You need the context. But I realize we need another distinction between legal and moral.

Well, first moral claims are prescriptive. They tell you what to do. But there are of course different kinds of prescriptions.

Moral claims tell you what to do regardless of your personal goals. This is often referred to as "objective", but the term "objective" has some unfortunate baggage associated. Perhaps it's better to call it "apodictic". Moral claims are prescriptive claims that establish a general duty you should follow.



Where do you think Kant's "freedom through morality" approach falls within meta-ethics?

I want to start a discussion here on these two competing views of moral philosophy, does the action matter more or do the consequences matter more. This varies from scenario to scenario but I think it is still a fun discussion to have. — Grievous

I think we should clarify first that not all deontological systems ignore consequences, nor do all consequentialist systems give free reign over the means.

The specific question "do the means justify the ends" is not strictly about deontology Vs consequentialism. It's also, as @Pfhorrest has pointed out, somewhat of a false dichotomy, or perhaps more generally a purely thought out question.

Means really don't have any individual existence. A "mean" is always relative to an end. Means are tools, with specific purposes. An isolated "mean" would at best be a reflex, some kind of uncontrolled force. Morality does not usually concern itself with reflexes.

Ends, on the other hand, do have a separate existence. But what is an end without the associated means? It's a fantasy, a wish. An idea without a connection to a possible action. And again, pure wishes are rarely relevant for morality (unless you are doing pure virtue ethics).

Means and end are two elements of the will to action. It really doesn't make sense to treat them as opposites.

Not sure I understand that. It seems more effective to do it in advance as a motivation to break the law if necessary.

That depends on how pessimistic you want to be. "Help me win by breaking the law, and I'll bail you out" is another possible subtext.

We know what we know because we think what we think. — Outlander

But everyone knows that views on morality are historically contingent. That's not news. Now we could go into an analysis of just how that process works, and whether there is some permanent "core morality", and that would at least be an interesting discussion.

I mean, would you rather be slaughtered by people who destroyed everything you know or live with others who did and do nothing but take care of you in exchange for labor? — Outlander

I am not sure what you're talking about. Who are the "others" here?

If the victim topples the other group in spite of that, is that bad? What if they do so but you found out I was lying and the victims were really the oppressors who already had control of their educational system and knowledge of history basically. — Outlander

I get the feeling this is some weird allusion to modern day

Is it even possible to insure ordinary joes from being blown up by the system or its savviest manipulators? What is the philosophy that upholds such a volatile situation, and can it be changed? — Enrique

I think the future of privacy is very much in question. Right now, for all then increasing legislation about privacy, people are voting privacy out with their feet. Or, more accurately, with their usage habits.

Big data is just too convenient. It tells you where you need to go, what to expect on the way, where else you might want to go, what you might enjoy etc. Etc. And that's just the start. It's entirely plausible that a medical bracelet could diagnose common illnesses just by comparing your vital functions to a database.

I am sceptical whether that process can be stopped. Perhaps we need a new notion of privacy? Something akin to security through obscurity, where you hide what you need to inside the mass of data

In short unless your a millionaire or one of the lucky few happy with your life, you'd be much happier as a squirrel or elephant. — Gitonga

Perhaps. But then studies indicate that happyness is actually not strongly connected to circumstance. People have a "happyness set point" which they will trend towards. Perhaps elephants and squirrels do to. The big advantage we as humans have is that we can reflect about our happyness and do something about it. If a squirrel is in a miserable state of mind, that's where it will remain.

On a decent forum, folk would have immediately pointed out that the OP commits the naturalistic fallacy. — Banno

It's actually worse. A naturalistic fallacy is at least an argument, if an invalid one.

The Op is simply a truism. Michael was correct when he said that all the OP said was that people believe what people believe, and the more power a belief has among the people, the more power it has.

You were proposing that it was logical that human consciousness exists through logical necessity. And so, what else exists through logical necessity? — 3017amen

Actually, it's the other way round. I am saying the world is how it is because we exist. Humans existing means that the world must allow for humans to exist. That's essentially what the anthropic principle says.

When people ask the "fine tuning" question, they generally assume the viewpoint of some objective observer outside time. In a way, by doing that, one is assuming God. Because your actual perspective is that of the human asking the question, and you can't just ignore that.

I don't think the question was whether I believe what I said - whether I am arguing in good faith.

So it sounds like you believe in logical necessity then, no? — 3017amen

That question doesn't make sense to me. I don't "believe" in logic. Logic is fundamental to my thinking.

I see. But I still feel that the probability of all 20+ parameters coming out in life supporting ranges by accident is very likely incredibly remote. Just an estimate. — Devans99

I realize you feel that way. I just feel you're fooling yourself, just like the con artist that offered you the wager would have fooled you.

- If 100 come out 6, I loose 100 dollars
- If 99 come out 6, I gain a million dollars
- Any other result is neutral (?)

I would take the wager. — Devans99

Actually I meant that if any one, or multiple, of the 100. So in all cases except all 100 coming out 6, you get a million dollars.

Of course all the dice have a six on every side. So you just lost 100 dollars.

It's 20+ separate parameters... it has to be some huge number. All I'm saying is it must be huge. — Devans99

Let's try the thought experiment again:

Imagine someone offers you the following wager: they will roll one hundred six-sided dice. They will accurately tell you what the results of each roll are, but you're not going to see the dice, or them rolling it. If all 100 dice come out 6, you have to pay 100 dollars. If only one doesn't, you get a million dollars.

It's 100 dice. It has to be some huge number, right? So you should absolutely take the wager?

Well I prefer to make a rough estimate rather than just saying 'I don't know'. I think a rough estimate is sufficient in this case - the number in question is huge - it hardly matters precisely how huge. — Devans99

Again, you're saying the number must be huge without any justification. That's not even an estimate, it's a naked claim.

As I stand to lose nothing, I'd take the wager. — Devans99

argh, I mistyped. Let's say when all numbers come up 6, you have to pay 100 dollars.

I am just estimating the chances - what else can I do? I'm not a quantum physicist! — Devans99

How about just not making stuff up? Not every question has an answer. It's okay to say "I don't know". Is that such a weird thought?

There are about 20 separate parameters. Conservatively assuming there is a 50% chance for each to be in life supporting range, then we have 50%^20 = 0.0000953674316% chance for the universe to be life supporting by chance. — Devans99

Let's do a little thought experiment:
Imagine someone offers you the following wager: they will roll one hundred six-sided dice. They will accurately tell you what the result is, but you're not going to see the dice, or them rolling it. If all 100 dice come out 6, you get a million dollars. If only one doesn't, you get a million dollars.

Do you take that wager?

I am afraid that I cannot give you any more than wild guesses on the actual probabilities of specific parameters being within life supporting range. But there are just so many things that need to be right for life to be supported that I hope you will agree the resulting combined probability that the universe is life supporting by chance has to staggeringly remote. — Devans99

Why should I agree to that? You admitted that you know nothing about the probabilities. You know nothing for any one of the parameters. And you know nothing about the entirety of them. But yet you claim to know something about what the chance is? How can you get something out of nothing?

1. It could have attractive, repulsive or attractive and repulsive action. The 3rd is required for life. There is a 33% chance of the third — Devans99

Could it? And why would the chances be equally distributed? It could be 0.0001 for the first two.

2. Its strength must be correct so that electrons orbit the nucleus, not flying off or falling into the nucleus. I'll have to make a guess here, maybe the chance of the strength being right is 25%
3. Its range must be correct - again I'll guess at 25%. — Devans99

Those are wild guesses without substance. You'd have to know the range of possible values for either to make any guess. But no-one knows that.

having nothing original, interesting or remotely sophisticated to say just pops up every couple of days to repeat the party (White House) line — Baden

Oh I am aware. That's why I usually just ignore them. But sometimes something so exquisitely stupid comes out of the propaganda machine that I can't help myself.

Highlight a part of their post with your fingers, a little black "quote" button should appear on the top right of your screen

So that's going to come out to some sort of huge number like billions to one. — Devans99

Why? Explain the logic behind this.

vandalism, the violence—this is a conformist putsch — NOS4A2

Now I don't usually reply to you, but this one just had me laughing out loud. Yes, rioting is so conformist . They just want everyone to conform to social standards, which is why they break the social standards.

The chances of [1] happening are billions to one, — Devans99

You just pulled that number out of your ass. The chance could be anything.

Maybe the more obvious question would be, why are there laws of physics/patterns in the universe v. the unrestricted chaos of a lawless universe? — 3017amen

Because only in a universe with patterns would there be some patterns capable of thinking about it.

Logically, if humans can ask the question then the universe must allow humans. So, from a purely logical perspective, the answer to the question: "why does the universe allow for life?" is: "because there is life in it".

The right to own property and that it cannot arbitrarily taken away from you is one of the basic institutions necessary for a functioning society. If this institution isn't upheld, like if I just can bribe a judge and come with a paper that the land that you have lived all your life is actually mine, there are huge problems in the society. In many Third World countries the lack of these institution of property is a major problem. Which indeed itself is a great topic when discussing communism. — ssu

Throughout history, the norm was that real property, i.e. land, could not be privately held. It was always held by the Band, Tribe, King or state. Individual real property is a relatively new phenomenon.

Now that doesn't mean that there weren't individual rights to certain uses of that land, so it's not a black and white issue of "full property" or "no property". However, European individualism is, historically, an anomaly.

Apart from the council Devans has mentioned, there were probably several smaller, more local decisions about what texts were "good enough" to keep around for posterity. Those decisions will not be documented by a major council, and in all likelyhood we'll never have a full picture of what the first accounts of the religion were like. There are also several documented instances where the text of the books we do have was changed over time.

Well I was working on the assumption that he didn't really want the job, just the prestige that comes with it, and for that it kinda doesn't matter whether he has one or two terms. But maybe that assumes too much reflection on Trump's part.

If you've witnessed a black hole or alien world in person or through a telescope or something, then sorry. Rather can find one- right now- to show an independent observer. You're right. And I apologize. — Outlander

Why would my personal observation be privileged? That's an idiotic standard. Case in point: you're not even observing me in person. So you don't know whether I exist, it's 50/50, right?

If you are unable to do so, I'd assert the odds remain 50/50. — Outlander

In that case, I'd assert that your epistemic standards are idiotic.

I'm assuming we can replace positive with assertive or irrefutable? — Outlander

A positive claim is an assertion. Not sure what irrefutable has to do with it.

That's a fact. So. By the same logic, it is not discounting the possibility. Therefore, er, yeah. When you're talking about things like parallel universes, black holes, and alien worlds the "possibility of God" becomes much more on par with the inverse. — Outlander

Black holes and alien worlds are observable phenomena. God would be a metaphysical claim, like parallel universes. But yes, an argument asserting that God is impossible would look very different from an argument asserting that God isn't real. This thread is about the latter.