Why don’t you actually try and address @Harry Hindu’s post.

So either this is true of Trump and Baden, or it’s not true of Trump and Baden? Which one?

Asking this question means that you're implicitly aware of the difference between the social and the individual - — emancipate

That’s not what I meant. My question was are you asking me personally what is behind this will to absolute epistemological certainty, or were you referring to the question that so many out there are concerned with?

What exactly is the negative consequence of owning rather than renting that you're trying to avoid? — Pfhorrest

There are no negative consequences I’m trying to avoid. I was interested if, in your theory, there really was a place or system for people who didn’t want to buy. Because if the rental market died as a consequence of certain actions I was wondering how renters would fit in.

Are you following the conversation you're involved in? Scroll up and, you know, read stuff. — Kenosha Kid

Well you can’t answer it because you don’t know. Some random post on Parler.

The usual “rambling and raving”. I mean really, is this the sort of reference we use now on this site.

Well what are you meaning when you say “a tiny number”, it’s a reasonable question.

And you’ve referred to my argument, which as far as I can see is that not everyone wants to buy property.

Well, enough of these pleasantries.

No need. You’d run.

They’d smell your fear from down the street.

Nazi is getting a bit tired. You’re going to have to find something new.

20,000,000. You’re a joke.

I bet you can’t wait to taste the blood yourself.

Actually it’s 74,222,958 votes, or 46.8 percent of the votes cast.

74, 222, 958 wannabe mass murderers? You may as well surrender now.

What it does for the man on the street is provide authenticity; — emancipate

Did you read the quote from Persson in my post?

Anyway, what is behind this will to absolute epistemological certainty? — emancipate

Is this sociological or addressed to me?

So you’re just throwing all these people into the same pot. Where do you draw the line, or is it all Republicans, all Conservatives?

not everyone wants to own a property
— Brett

the fuck they dont. — Pfhorrest

The fuck they do.

I dare say there are a tiny number of such people. — Kenosha Kid

What do you call “tiny”?

basically the same as Brett's argument. — Kenosha Kid

What exactly is my argument?

We need to start systematically assassinating liberal leaders — Kenosha Kid

Who said that?

In as many words, yes. — Kenosha Kid

What could that possibly mean?

They’re not going to succeed and they know it. It’s all virtual signalling.

So they call themselves “wannabe mass murderers”? It’s whose alleged goal, whatever that is?

I think you need to calm down. There’s almost a sense of pleasure in all this sky falling in stuff.

From protestors to terrorists to mass murderers.

Philosophy is good for those who recognize that they are congenitally unwise; for them, striving to moderate, if not minimize, their unwisdom becomes both possible (via patiently habitualizing various reflective practices) and desirable. — 180 Proof

So, to paraphrase, philosophy is good for those who are born without the talents of the wise and realise this. They can minimise this condition in life through philosophy. But my question is can it be learned without assistance? If they are congenitally unwise then they would need a teacher.

But you said I had misread you, and

.. "suggests" the unwise remain unwise even if "introduced to philosophy".[/quote]

which reads a bit contradictory. So can we clear this up, whoever is the cause of confusion?

For or against?

Do you understand why the electoral college was established?

So no enforceable contracts on paying rent for leasing a place. Consequently there would squatters, which defeats the purpose of owning and renting properties and therefore kills off the rental market. Is that it?

I neither claimed nor implied that 'philosophy is a cure-all' in either of my posts to this thread. — 180 Proof

Nor am I suggesting that. What I meant was that if it does not come to us naturally then we would need instruction. And if we did not get instruction then we would not have it to use and so remain unwise.

In no sense do I think philosophy is a “cure-all”.

“ Far from establishing a rational consensus about what is morally right, and about what the ground and meaning of this rightness is, moral philosophers have produced a perplexing array of possible moral systems—consequentialist, deontological, con- tractualist, virtue ethical, you name it—but no agreed method to decide which of these system is the sound one. Indeed, it is even controversial what ‘soundness’ here is tantamount to, whether moral judgments can be true in the same sense as factual judgments, and true independently of our affective or conative attitudes, or whether moral judgments are merely non-cognitive expressions of such attitudes.

If it had not been for the fact that moral philosophy is often too esoteric to be grasped by the public, the substantial disagreement that is raging among its practitioners might have had a deleterious effect on public morality. Philosophical disputes about the foundation and content of morality might have eroded the authority that common-sense morality has acquired over centuries as a result of the exposure effect, and weakened the motivation to abide by it.

It seems unlikely that this substantial disagreement will subside, for even though our moral responses must converge to some extent if we are to be able to live together in functioning societies—which is a pre-requisite of our evolutionary success—they are surely not so finely attuned that we should expect them to converge with respect to the manifold of fanciful scenarios that our philosophically trained cognitive powers could construct. http://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/JPE0049-Persson-1.pdf

So in this utopian world no one would be allowed to rent because there would be nothing to rent.

why would they not deduce that racism is destructive to others, or that anti-Semitism is a dangerous point of view.
— Brett

We live in a much more interconnected world than past philosophers did. They had limited exposure to groups unlike themselves. Had Kant ever met a black person? I heard he never travelled outside of Prussia. — Joshs

Frege was an anti-Semite. Jews aren’t that alien to Europeans.

Edit: Frege, “ Hmmm, what is meaning? Get that Jew out of this building!”

Not hanging around are they?

“Hume and Kant were racists,”

If it seems to you that anyone should act in a way different than the way they do in fact act, I’d suggest the reason is that you’re applying your own worldview to them rather than effectively grasping their vantage on things. — Joshs

I’m not asking anyone to act in the way I think they should. It just seems to me that anyone who applied an intellect of the sort these two possessed, then why would they not deduce that racism is destructive to others, or that anti-Semitism is a dangerous point of view.

What exactly should I grasp about Kant’s racist beliefs?

Edit: I guess this adds to my query about philosophy being some sort of add-on. I mean why didn’t Kant’s philosophy permeate all of his thinking?

the fuck they dont. why would you want to keep paying for something when you could instead just have it and stop paying? — Pfhorrest

That’s a pretty bold claim. And “stop paying”? How does that work?

I didn’t want to own a home for many years. That sort of commitment just didn’t appeal. I’ve known many people who prefer to rent. Of course they don’t like how high the rent is but they pay it because they want to live in a particular area. They may not plan to live in that town or city permanently. There are many reasons for not wanting to own a home.

They don’t appear to have applied their thinking and discrimination to themselves.
— Brett

I disagree. The personal actions of philosophers don’t occur in spite of their expressed worldiview but because of it; — Joshs

I’m not quite sure what you mean. You seem to be saying, for sample, that Aristotle’s thoughts regarding women was the result of his intellect. But it does seem to me that anyone applying their intellect to the world around them would reach the conclusion that women are not less than men.

Philosophy proliferates difference. — emancipate

On the surface that seems like a wonderful thing. But what is the benefit? If we can’t use philosophy to hone in on something, slowly reducing it to the kernel of truth, then as I said it creates more doubt than truth, as if there’s some wonder to an eternity of questions. That’s interesting for those who like to bend their minds around things and wrestle with meanings, but what does it do for the man in the street who, having been told God is dead, then asks are morals real?

that philosophy, the acme of thinking properly, will be alien to us. — TheMadFool

Well, speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, thinking is a brand new skill for life; — TheMadFool

That’s an interesting take on things. We’re still babies on the earth. So philosophy is still very rudimentary. And taking into account our recent appearance and then even more recently our application of philosophy then it’s a very new and untested thing. So certainly not perfect by any means, but nor necessarily true that it’s a good thing. Like the centipede asked how he walks with all those legs.

Philosophy is good for those who recognize that they are congenitally unwise; for them, striving to moderate, if not minimize, their unwisdom becomes both possible (via patiently habitualizing various reflective practices) and desirable. — 180 Proof

I haven’t started this OP to prove anything but to follow a vague thought I had, which may be seen as the hat representing philosophy. Your post suggests that we may need to be introduced to philosophy, to be instructed in it. Otherwise we would be unwise, unless it developed under it’s own steam, which you suggest it cannot be. My list of philosophers was to indicate how, despite their philosophical investigations, these people remained unwise in other ways that those who do not take part in philosophy did not suffer from (my assumption of course). So it seems to me that philosophy is like an appendage or the hat placed on the head.

Which raises the obvious question: why does anyone rent? — Pfhorrest

I understand where you’re coming from in terms of your posts about capitalism, but not everyone wants to own a property, and there are many reasons for wanting to rent. There’s no doubt that landlords are hurting people, but on the other hand without their investment there wouldn’t be places to rent for those who don’t want to buy. Not to mention the fact that a small business may view renting as a better option than buying.

First of all there’s no need to apologise. And though I began the OP I’m not the moderator of it. And even if I was I wouldn’t silence you because of your posts. Sometimes we have an idea about something in relation to the OP which we just cannot shake off. If you want to pursue the OP from that point of view then I don’t see a problem. It seems to me that your just digging into a thought you have. Sometimes there seems to be a slight resistance to someone going of on a tangent but that’s the part of the reason I come here, who knows where it might lead?

Of course. So I don’t see why you feel you can make judgements about my mental state.

How old are you @Jack Cummins?

the above is basically saying that in an isolationist country, capitalism is net good and in an internationalist country, capitalism is net bad. — Kenosha Kid

No, I’m not saying that at all. (BTW I’m aware of China reaping the rewards of globalisation. I just think their success is interesting to look at.)

In all countries over the course of recent history they have benefitted from capitalism in that it has brought people out of poverty. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or not, I’m just making myself clear.

Globalism promised the same thing on a global level. So yes people in China, India, Bangladesh benefitted in obtaining jobs. They were able to earn reasonable money for where they lived. But the conditions were what we in the West had already moved on from, they are terrible. So that’s a lie there about the wonder of globalism. Then as a result of jobs going there they were lost in other countries. Whole industries closed down. You know all this. So yes capitalism pulled people out of poverty and globalism put them back in poverty.

But, I think that you need to look into yourself more rather than project all your anger outwards. — Jack Cummins

Unbelievable hubris.