It's a shame that the other thread was too technical, but perhaps the discussion therein can be set out clearly with less technical language. — Banno

I agree. I could not get even close to kicking the ball in that thread. Whoosh! over my head.

However, I have attended a lecture once (one of the handfuls of quasi-formal learning processes I obtained in philosophy) at a humanist gathering, and the lecturer or guest speaker had come from the philosophy department of the local university.

He talked about Logic 1 and Logic 2. Logic one is empirically established by evolving humans. (Darwinian sense.) No two phyisical things can occupy the same space, nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect, and causes must precede effects. The professor said, these absolute truths of logic have been all belied by observed physical events in quantum mechanics. So he said, that Logic 2 is a logic which had not been developed in humanity's minds, because there had been no reason for it to develop. Now that we have QM, we must get back to the drawing board.

This is different, I think, from the "free logic" you espouse or else espouse and advocate. The Logic 2 is to be developed to encompass those events in QM which belie the logic of Logic 1. Free Logic, on the other hand, may be different or similar, but I can't tell you which, since I don't know what Free Logic is.

----------------

After the lecture I walked up to him, and said, "Dear doctor Professor, if we are forced to allow the acceptance of events to be true that are logically impossible, why do we have the right to keep rejecting the notion of the Holy Trinity?" I am shit disturber, as you know.

The professor looked at me, and without a word he turned around and left me standing there.

"I think"; notice that it already contains "I"? That is, it already assumes what it is attempting to prove. — Banno

To me "I think" is not an assumption, but an empirical observation. The statement is not purely logical; it contains an element form empirical observations. That is where I see the true genius of this statement: it contains an absolute, irrrrrrrrrrrrefutable logical proof of an empirical event. The genius basically lies in the ability to connect empirical reality to logical necessity.

How many here have seen the clip in "Monthy Python at the Hollywood Bowl", where they televise a soccer match between a team of classical Greek philosophers and a team of German philosophers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfduUFF_i1A

It's amusing how up in arms the self-righteous become — Janus

There are two types of people in this world: the righteous and the wicked.
And it is invariably the righteous who determine who is in which group.

Quote from the publication "Murphy's Law" cca 1975

You don't get to be a Diogenes just because you masturbated in the marketplace.
— Baden

Hey.... It was just that once. — T Clark

Doctor's office.
Doctor (looks at the patient, then says), "Sir, you've got to stop masturbating."
Patient: "What?? Wh... wh... why, my god, why?"
Doctor: "Because now I want to examine you."

Would Heidegger be banned?
— Cartuna

Only in my dreams, alas. — Ciceronianus

Well, he ain't around, no posts by him anywhere these days, so either he has been banned or found for himself a forum better suited for his values.

Sure. — Srap Tasmaner

Thanks. I appreciate that.

You have wrapped the argument that everyone who enjoys the benefits of living in a modern industrialized society shares some measure of blame for climate change in a claim that for them to say otherwise is hypocritical. That strikes me as kind of an odd way to frame the point. It suggests that you are more interested in whether people are being hypocritical than what they’re being hypocritical about. — Srap Tasmaner

You are very astute in noticing this, and you are absolutely right. That was my precise point. It is a two-pronged argument: one is that we are indeed each individually adding to the cumulative effect of global warming. This is what is the basis of the argument, and I believe this is true, otherwise I would not be arguing it. The second part of the argument is based on my judging of what is fair and what is not. It is fair to say that we are all contributing; it is unfair to say that only certain strata of society is responsible for contributing. This is a moral stand, not a mechanical-logical argument. The mechanical-logical argument was wrapped up in the first part. This second part seems odd to you as a frame, because I do believe it is perhaps original as a moral point of view and moral judgment. I believe this is not a false view, and that is why I advocate it. It is a valid view, and people just have not been considering it, because everyone else (other than me) has sheepishly bought into the argument that my debating opponent presents.

Was I harsh in calling people hypocritical? Please consider viewing my moral argument here in the odd but I believe valid moral point of view, and I am quite certain that then you will see that my accusation was not ungrounded in saying that people who exclude themselves and many others from the blame of causing global warming are, indeed, hypocritical.

What would you do, Srap Tsmaner, if somebody said that to you?
— god must be atheist

You should have flagged it. — Srap Tasmaner

There would have been no response, was my summary estimation and I had a very tangible reason to expect that. I had just gone through a very similar episode with another member and please spare me from having to repeat the details. I appealed to two moderators; one was unsympathetic and dismissed the severity of the insults I received; the other was more sympathetic and advised the two of us to cut it out, which we both did.

So next time this sort of thing happens, can I appeal to you personally, instead of going into a visceral and bitter fight? and if you do advise to appeal to you, do you personally promise to intervene at such times that it's needed? I ask you this, because you advised me to flag it, so I understand that you'd find it actionable. So I do expect some action from you if I flag a post and you agree at the time that this would be in the realm actionable.

Please respond, I respectfully ask you to. I understand you are a moderator, with executive powers.

I'm going to sleep now, I'll revisit this debate tomorrow again. Or maybe even look around the forum here, if I find some other discussions interesting to engage in. We'll continue tomorrow.

Thanks for the opportunity you provided to defend my views.

That’s like blaming people for buying cars when that’s the only choice they’re given. What they really want — and have got decades — is public transportation. The auto, rubber, and fossil fuel industries haven’t suppressed those options through their lobbying of congress. But it’s the CONSUMERS fault for buying a car to get to work? Find — let that be your focus if you’d like. — Xtrix

Public transportation is just as much available as ever. Cars are bought and used because people like the convenience of it. The decline of availability and convenience of public transportation happened not due to capitalists closing down railway lines and making city bus service less frequent... it's because people like to get into cars, drive to somewhere, and then drive back again. This does not need to be sold to people by capitalist pigs' propaganda machinery, as you seem to claim has been happening.

No. You claimed that placing blame on “capitalists” was HIGHLY HYPOCRITICAL, placing everyone in the company of the guilty— which is exactly what’s been promoted by those in power for decades. — Xtrix

I assure you I am not a capitalist, and I never read any capitalist power agitational propaganda.

I am simply using my head.

If the capitalist pigs, as you call them, forced you to make a decision to use society's benefits, against your will, then I would buy your defense in the argument, that these are capitalists' arguments and propaganda. But society's benefts are not dispensable. You don't use them because the capitalists force you to, you use them because without them you'd perish. Men and women have eaten and kept themselves warm since the advent of mankind. Why do you think it is the capitalist pig's insistence and propaganda that makes us want to eat, drink, live in a place, work for an honest living, transport ourselves, etc? These are parts of modern living, that are parts to make our lives happier, more comfortable, and safer, and most of all, possible. I don't eat because a capitalist pig is poking me to eat. I don't wear clothes because a capitalist pig is brainwashing me to do so. Do you?

Each of you have a position to argue. I do not understand why you are both more interested in talking about how appalled you are that the other has taken the position they have.

If you must argue about who’s to blame for climate change, argue about that. — Srap Tasmaner

That's exactly the direction I am taking. Read please the early parts... I was defending what I perceived were personal attacks on me.

Try keeping your mouth shut about things you don’t understand. It works wonders. — Xtrix

What would you do, Srap Tsmaner, if somebody said that to you?

And please do observe that I was able to bring the discussion back to the topic you suggested: who is to blame for climate change. My position: every consumer of society. Xtrix's position: only the capitalist pigs. The debate still continues, and please be assured, that it will not let it get out of hand as long as I can help that.

Sure— in the same way as we’re all to blame for the bombing of Iraq, and the many other war crimes and terrorism of the US (for those who live here, anyway). Does that mean I share equal blame with Rumsfeld? — Xtrix

This is a false conclusion. We are not to be blamed for the decisions we do not make. The war against innocent people and devastating their countries is NOT your or my decision. It was a decision made by the leaders elected by US citizens. Therefore I refuse to take blame for the US bombing other innocent countries to rabble. This parallel you drew was obviously illogical and aimed to win a part of the argument on false premises.

The two are separable, and separate. The using of society's benefits IS your decision. You could easily give up all of society's benefits to claim innoncence from the blame of pulluting the atmosphere, killing wildlife and causing climate change. But you don't decide that, you keep using society's benefits. So you are not above blame.

So spare me this disingenuous lecture about manners. — Xtrix

No, I won't spare lecturing you, because what I say is not disingenuous.

I say what I mean, and I stand behind my words and opinions.

You have not convinced me that you don't drive a car, don't use the roads, don't wear clothes and don't use forms of entertainment. You have also not convinced me that you don't eat, or drink, and that you hadn't gone to school ever. You have not convinced me that you do not rent or purchased a dwelling place to live in, to protect you from the elements. You did all these things, which added to the climate change.

So I put to you this: is a person who uses energy as much as the average person in his community, not hypocritical, when he blames the builders to build his home, when he blames the car manufacturers to build his car, when he blames the clothes manufacturers to make his clothes, and the producers of his food, and the transportation companies to deliver this to him or to close to him where the goods are available without much work to him... is a person who uses energy for all these for his own benefit not hypocritical when he blames OTHERS who bring the food, clothing, who build the building he lives in and the roads to get these to him?

I highly resent NOT that you use society's benefits, but I resent that you misplace the blame and put on the persons who make it possible for you to enjoy these benefits. If you were NOT hypocritical then you would simply give up these benefits, and then you could claim moral superiority. But until such time, you simply can't.

I kept using "you", but it applies to all users of society's benefits, not just to you, personally.

You said so yourself: you’ve been told to “laugh at” certain ideas — like the fact that there’s such a thing as power differentials, and that with more power comes more blame. — Xtrix

This is an error in your judgment, and severe error. I am not told to laugh off ideas that there are power differentials, and that with more power comes more to blame. I am told to laugh off personal attacks by other members that I feel offensive and are directed against me personally. You had no clue what I had been told, so you arbitrarily and shall I say erroneously substituted an idea that i had not been told, and now you believe that that's the idea I was told to laugh off.

Of course the wording you used, and keep on using, makes your utternances slippery. You did not outright say that that's the idea I was told to laugh off... you said that that's the idea, the LIKES OF WHICH I was told to laugh off.

So I would like to ask you this question: when and where and why did you learn that this type of insinuation is proper in a personal discourse? You are not saying anything, the wording you use has built-in defences, yet the utterances sound arrogantly insulting. You insinuate (but don't state) things that you want to accuse me with, but there is no accusation, only an insinuation of it.

This is not clear to many people. At first it was not clear to me, either, and now that I thought about it, and read and re-read your responses to my posts, it is clear that your utterances don't hold water, because they are not claims, only opinions, expressed in a form of wording that deny the accusations' validity.

Why do you do this? What satisfaction do you get out of this?

People go through great lengths to defend capitalism — or any dogma they’ve been brought up to hold dear. — Xtrix

Maybe people do that. Sure. But what makes you so certain that I am practicing that behaviour? I simply pointed out to you who I think is to blame for an energy-using, consumerist society. You concluded from my opinion that I am repeating stupid slogans. There is a large gap between these two ideas, and I ask you to fill in the gap. After all, you made the conclusion, so you must have the steps envisioned that connects the two ideas. These steps only you are aware of, and therefore I ask you to reveal them to me on this public forum.

You keep saying "I suppose you would have been an excellent spokesperson for the tobacco lobby." This is not a verbatim quote, but a summary of a few quotes as opined by you.

Yes, this is your opinion. But you said it with such vehemence and conviction, that it came through as more than just an opinion, it came through as an attempt to convince others of the truth of your opinion.

This is fair game here. Apparently. What if someone said to you in conversation on these forums, in front of everyone, "Xtrix, you are in my opinion a mysogynist bastard, and you would have made a perfect rapist in a society where it's not punished by law." I am not saying this is my opinion; I am asking you that if hypothetically a person said this, what would your response be? Would you say that the assessment of you was fair, and he had the right to utter such opinion? If not, would you try to deny and refute the opinion's message, and would you try to defend against it?

Xtrix: if I am not stupid, then why would I repeat stupid slogans? Would a not stupid person repeat not stupid slogans instead? This is a discrepancy I need you to clarify for me.

Because I don't think you think of me as smart. I need your guidance. You said "I did not say you were stupid", but you may, just may, still think I am stupid. Not saying something does not equate denial of that something.

In that case I need things explained to me, one being, why a not stupid person would espouse (the in-word these days on this forum) stupid slogans? I depend on you to explain this to me.

Do continue, Xtrix. I was told to laugh off shit like the arguments you present.

Tell me again how stupid I am in your esteem and what lead you to that conclusion.

So, the person in question was given a chance to repent? That was not how it appeared to me. — Janus

The person pre-empted his repention. He outright declared he'd never change. No chance given to repent, because he ab ovo rejected the notion. What do you do? You can't piss against the wind. You can't offer redemption to outright atheists. You can't offer probation to self-confessed serial murderers. You can't offer chocolate ice cream to highly diabetic people.

(It's fantasy that) we can or should try to reform bigots by being nice to them. — Baden

Long live the heterogots!

They must certainly DO use more fossil fuel, and most certainly DO compel people to use more fossil fuel. They, like tobacco before them, lobby Congress and have deliberately fooled people with misinformation.

You’d have been a great apologist for big tobacco as well, I’m sure. After all, “WE choose to smoke“, etc.

What a joke. — Xtrix

Xtrix: a most typical apologist to hypocritical fools. Fools who seek and found a scapegoat, whereas it's they, we, you, I, who are to blame -- we all are. Naysaying that only feeds the hypocrisy of your "my shit don't smell" attitude. Some people just can't take the blame when it's due. It's a spineless, cowardly attitude to blame others for one's own wrongdoing.

Some would say that ranking expressions for superiority is mystical and fuzzy. :smile:

I actually don't know anyone who would say that. All I know is that there are two meanings to evolution. One is the Darwinist meaning, and it does NOT insinuate superiority even by complexity. But the other meaning of evolution does: used socially, when people use it as "I have evolved", or "his moral code has evolved", or such like.

The problem comes when people use the social meaning of evolution, and apply it in the Darwinian sense. "Hungarians are more evolved than Roumanians", is clearly wrong because it attaches a false sense of value judgment to peoples.

The reason I laterally associated evolution with calling archaic mystical, is the fact that superiority is not measured by mysticism or by fuzziness in languages. Much like complexity or evolved features do not represent superiority between two differing species.

----------

One might argue that man is superior to cockroaches in an evolutionary sense. That is not true. 1. Both species are thriving at present time. 2. A nuclear holocaust can wipe out the human species, but cockroaches will survive. 3. Evolution is not a basis for a ranking system ab ovo. Darwin did not think of the products of evolution as more or less superior than others.

Yes, that's correct, the consciousness problem is the same as the soul problem.

You actually touched on my beliefs. Very good sleuth work. I am only logically consistent, not a skeptic.

I don't think there is a god out there. But that's just a secondary point, because basically there could be a god there out there. I don't know. All I know is that god gave no indication ever of its power, of its characteristics, of its motivation, nothing. There is nothing we can learn about god. It never manifests itself, and it never gives any clues as to its own nature.

So... my philosophy is, like you said, useless, if I were to say I believe in a god. That was a very astute observation by you. But actually I don't believe in a god. It's a personal choice, and not something I wish to force on other people.

I allow that my belief could be false, and god may exist... but it's futile to discuss its wishes, desires, nature and powers, when we have nothing to go on. God, if it exists, certainly enjoys incognito status.

I suppose it depends on how you define god — DingoJones

Defining god is a most difficult thing. It has given no indications of its characteristics. So anything goes, including and excluding anything, because it's a completely blank slate.

Hence the faith in god. It is not knowledge; it is faith, that is, belief in the unknown. In this case, in the completely unknown.

I love your answers and contributions, guys! (And ladies, if some of you are female, and people, if you are not in the extremes of the gender-spectrum.)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, DingoJones!

I would say this is where it breaks down. You start with the conclusion that thoughts do not exist in physically but you havent established that. Just because we dont have man made instruments to measure something doesnt mean it doesnt exist physically. — DingoJones

You're right. I should have said "we have no evidence that thoughts exist physically." So... then the question to ask you begs itself, "DingoJones, do all things, of the physical existence of which we have no physical evidence, exist as physical things? Must they necessarily exist as a physical thing? Why must we assume that they do exist in a physical manifestation in the physical world?"

My approach is this: I calls them as I sees them. If there is no evidence of a thing, and there is no reasonable need to assume of that thing to exist, then I treat it as non-existent. There may be and are other approaches, but I am satisfied to have it my way.

Even if god existed in some intangible way we would still be able to detect gods interactions with the physical in the same way that detect thoughts interacting with the physical. — DingoJones

If gods decided to interact with us. Why or why not they do or don't I don't know. At present time, again, they never showed us any initiative to communicate -- that is, initiative, that I can believe.

And now we face almost certain destruction at the hands of climate change, thanks in part to the greed and shortsightedness of the fossil fuel capitalists. — Xtrix

The greedy capitalists are NOT inciting you to drive your car, wear clothes, heat your apartment, cool the inside of your fridge. YOU are doing it, and so am I; time to stop blaming THEM, the greedy capitalists. They are not using, per head, or per capita, more energy than you and I use, and blaming them for providing us what we want and demand is HIGHLY HYPOCRITICAL.

That is a very true and astute observation. I have seen it happen and I've read it recounted in fiction, I think.

"Soulmates" betray, domestically violate and divorce each other every day. — 180 Proof

And there are soulmates who do not do that. I am not naysaying, I just don't want you to carry away the thought.

Funny you say this, John27. I ain't no chick magnet, they just want to be friends, if even that. But I know a guy who is like your friend. His problem is a speech impediment and a profound inability to communicate. I would have thought that that was a huge plus in a relationship -- no arguments, no snide remarks, no under-handed compliments, no put-downs.

1. I think your question is very easily answered by empirical observation. 2. And the answer is No. — dimosthenis9

1 is true.
2. is either true or false; an empirical observation is needed not just of a few select individuals, but of a group randomly selected of the general pool of people, and examining a large enough number of them to make the empirical observation statistically significant.

I don't believe you have examined that large number of highly intelligent people, Dimosthenis9. Therefore your answer is arbitrary, and unreliable.

We can still use the speculative approach using analytical thoughts. That's what the rest of us, other than you, D, did. Our answer is not completely reliable, but it uses logic and reason to figure out the answer; therefore it is not completely arbitrary. Whereas your empirical method was completely arbitrary, while udoubtedly your method would yield a better, more accurate result than ours, should the observation have properly been made.

+duplication elsewhere

I've dated a lot and had four serious long term relationships. I have loved all of my partners, but never been crazy in love with any of them, none of them was the thunderbolt.
— dazed
This is me too. By my early/mid-thirties I'd come to seek only casual relationships realizing that I was more consistently 'happy' single than when I was with a 'love partner'. Serial (sapiosexual) monogamist aka "confirmed bachelor" by forty. — 180 Proof

How long is a string?

How long can a love affair be that is termed "long term" but last a fraction of the time of the average marriage?

Love is an elusive concept, and in practice even more elusive. It is as universal as a love song, and as particular and individualistic as a person's preference to food, clothing, job, hobbies and vacations, all combined.

Crazy love is possible, but its probability diminishes with age. And if you taste the sweet fruit of promiscuity, you are in a bind as to how to settle down.

I was in a long term relationship for 26 years, but it was punctuated with intermittent bouts of promiscuity. And now for my old age -- I'm 34 y.o.a. now -- I've finally settled down wiht a woman. We've been steadily dating for five years, in total loyalty and marital fidelity.

Is it good? It's the sweetest thing. Do I miss promiscuity? You bet I do. I practice the wisdom of the ninteen eighties or nineties, though. The particular pearl of wisdom has a name: The Rockefeller syndrome. It goes like this: Never do anything that you would not want to be caught doing dead. Rockefeller was a prominent politician, I think he had ran for the POTUS, and he had a wife who had lost both her breasts to mammarian cancer. Then Mr. Rockefeller was found dead when he was making out with a prostitute.

That news was written by employed journalists; edited, audited for truth and generally respectable if sometimes opinionated - if it wasn't other broadcasters and informed readers would make its shortcomings clear. So the public had reasonably reliable sources. — Tim3003

True. The facts checked out, mostly. The commentary was geared to any opinion, though. They declared the communist countries as evil empires -- they were not as evil as the media depicted, mostly they were rather just inept. The leadership was inept, and their inept way of brainwashing made them look evil, because they did do evil things. Political prisons, for instance. Their inept way of selling their commentary was not bought by the public across the board; they needed terror to take up the slack in compliance.

In the US, Britain, the Western Free World, the difference was that people believed the commentaries, so terror was not needed to quell any resistance to the opinion the ruling class wanted people to accept. That's so because there was no resistance. The media was in complete trust of the people. Because the media created a transferable skill from reporting facts truthfully to getting their opinions accepted as plain truth.

For instance, now we see movies with HEROES in the Viet Nam war. (US-Viet Kong.) At the time the youth was opposing it and condemned it. Famous rockers and philosophers (John Lennon, Bob Dylan et al) condemned the war. People protested against it all over the world, not just on US soil. Now the war is viewed as a just war, producing heroes. And people gobble this new, albeit false, image down, because they still in the same groove as always in the West: believing the facts, believing the commentary.

Now anyone can report whatever 'news' they want via social media, and anyone else who's curious can read it — Tim3003

I'm active on FB. FaceBook does check facts. Opinions it lets ride, but facts they are serious about.

I can't check facts. I rely on FB, and I trust that its editorial board comprises well-informed people who have access to verified news, because they have full access to the Internet.

If biological systems, including ourselves, act so as to minimise surprise, then why don't we crawl into a dark room and stay there? — Banno

Dark rooms are threatening. They promise surprise. We don't know if there is a mountain bear in the cave, we don't see the scorpions and the snakes. Darkness does not decrease the surprise element; it increases it. We are not in control, because we don't see, or don't see the details well enough.

We sleep in the dark because we are basically defenseless in both the dark and in our sleep. So we combine the two, marry the two, and get two birds stoned under one hat.

Ah, but the beginning of an utterance? — Constance

You should ask the OP. I am just saying what frame of reference to look at it from. I did not say it, I won't defend it, please ask the OP. I am washing my hands.