Call me a knowledge nihilist. A denier of expert analysis. A refuser of believing in speculative results. When it comes to international politics.

Need I go any farther?

According to Wittgenstein, no person's motivation can be accurately guessed by others. Wittgenstein did not prove this, but the notion has been accepted by thinkers.

In international politics and diplomacy people hide their agendas. We can't guess where Peter Sommers, a given house realtor will be next Tuesday, and he has an agenda of events. How can we guess where Putin will put out next Tuesday, and what and why and when he will do that? HE HIDES HIS MOTIVATION. We couldn't guess if he did not hide that. But we think??? that now that he hides it, we are smart enough to accurately guess it?

My opinion goes beyond this war. It reaches all kinds of political moves. Putin and this war just was just an example to illustrate my point.

That's why people are prone and able to believe in conspiracy theories: there is no way to tell (philosophically speaking, in the vein of Hume's system of what's known and what's knowable) which theory is right. If I say space goats from Io, from Jupiter's third moon, are eating up the Ukrain's army reserves, I can't prove it, but you also can't prove it to me why the war started, why it's continuing, and how it will end.

===============

Question: do you think rejecting ALL (not just some) possible scenarios is a valid proposition in this war, and in any other? Do you think people are capable of logically determine the course of war? I should think not, and any talk about it may be interesting, entertaining and thought-provoking to some, but ultimately there is no way of telling ahead of time.

Please do not speak of your friend here again. — Baden

okay, I promise. It's not very important for me to tout her musings.

BTW, thanks for putting your post; I did not understand a word of what Isaac said. His style involves too many ideas and too deep thoughts crammed into short, terse expressions. I am unable to follow Isaac's posts most of the time. So I am happy that you clarified the fact that my friend's opinions are not welcome, because while you praise Isaac's post to this effect, to me Isaac's post was completely incomprehensible.

Long story short: I'll never quote that friend of mine again.

Just joining in... sorry if I repeat things already said.

I paraphrase a few things from a personal friend of mine, who is an interested, interesting person:
1. Russian troops are not engaged. They wait with attack, to avoid bloodshed of civilian Ukes(*).
2. Ukes are using the weapons distributed for defense, to settle old scores among themselves.
3. There is general mayhem inside Ukraine.
4. My friend thinks there is a general script the major players follow. Trump was on a reality show; Putin is an ex actor (?) and Trudeaui is an ex drama teacher. Reality is fast becoming a multimedia show, which my friend insists is scripted.

Is there any way to verify this? It's all very plausible, but could be totally false.

"Ukes": no disrespect meant, only shorter form of typing.

Demonstrate that such is true, considering the fact that aggression is specifically linked to one feeling entitled him/herself to some etc. etc. — Garrett Travers

Garrett, I don't read your posts, and you promised to not read mine, but apparently you forgot.

No problem, just a gentle reminder that I ignore everything you say for I believe you are not worthy to be present on this board, but that you should not take it as an insult, because it is my opinion, and only that. If you feel like you can reciprocate this sentiment, and I believe you have in the past, then of course please do. This post is also a refresher for that opinion-exchange.

Happy philosophizing. :-)

The reason for high murder rates is a feeling of entitlement, the Randian Me! philosophy, and the culture of arrogance.

Your uncle was right. And you were right. You can live a life of correct decisions, but it won't be perfect, for the simple reason that perfection eludes definition when it is used to measure quality of life. There is no metric or benchmark to mark perfection. It is an idealized quality, which can't be expressed by measurements, therefore it is futile to imagine that anything can be perfect, since we can't at all tell what is perfect and what is not.

Thanks for explaining it... I was confused.

I see you are relatively new to the site, so I wish you good cheer and nice intellectual frolic here. It's a good, fertile ground for fresh thoughts and to develop insights, like you said. Sometimes tempers flare, but that apparently is as old a feature of philosophy as is the practice of debating itself.

On a side note: I am an antecedent-nazi. I can't abide with pronouns that are important to be identified for their antecedents, but are not. I don't always leash out, mostly not, but sometimes I do. I apologize for being perhaps too straightforward with demanding earlier whom you meant with "we", and I am very glad you understood my concern and satisfied my curiosity.

We discussed these issues before, so I would prefer avoiding repeating ourselves. — DA671

You and I never had a discussion back to a month ago inclusive... and the issue I brought up I have mentioned for the first time within a month ago. At least I don't remember any discussion with you, and I did not spot any on your list of posts. Please point me to the time when you and I previously discussed these issues. If it's not you and I who had discussed these issues, then who is the "We" you're referring to? Without clear identification of antecedents, "we" means you and me, and it's not the case.

(This seems to be going in the same direction as any discussion with Bartricks... constant denial of opposition's points, with unclear referencing, vague claims, and extraordinary claims... the only difference is that Bartricks uses insults, whereas you are a nice person, DA671.)

Proceed as you wish... I am not here to stop you from engaging Bartricks. I respect your decision, whatever it may be.

Thanks, and likewise, have a nice day yourself.

P.s. All men have limited understanding.

I quote Khaled. He has said this on page 2 of the thread entitled "Does God Have Free Will". When Khaled refers to "it", Khaled means Bartricks. Quote can be found on this URL:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12026/does-god-have-free-will/p2

"↪GraveItty ↪SolarWind Don't engage it. Among other ridiculous claims, it believes that life on Earth is hell where the wicked are sentenced for punishment and that whatever happens to you here, you deserve it. It also believes that if you disagree with it its necessarily because you lack expertise, and goes around asking for qualifications without presenting any on its part. It also can't see the irony here:

When reality is at home?
— GraveItty

You can't answer a question with a question, can you?
— Bartricks

Engaging it is reserved for masochists. When you begin to get anywhere it will retreat to "dunning kruger" or "this is how it is present to my reason" but it will take you 70 posts to get to that point.

The only clever things that come out of its mouth are ad homs. Which I have to say are top notch.
— khaled"
This reflects my own opinion on Bartricks. I quoted Khaled because he says what I can't express succinctly and without using expletives.

double entry

I think it's still the fear of punishment unfortunately, that does mostly the work for people and societies in general. — dimosthenis9

I agree. The first quote you quoted from me had been quoted from Olivier5. My mistake (and I seek forgiveness for it) that I hadn't indicated that.

But I agree with both. Small damages are forgiven, large ones are punished... that's how it should be, and generally speaking, that's how it is done in the society I live in.

The problem with cancel culture: small and large "sins" or "crimes" are both treated in an unforgiving way.

What we forget is that there is a balance to cancel culture, and it has also been going on as long as CC; the creation of what we now call Celebrities, and generally, the creation of Cults of Persons.

In Communist countries it was Marx, Engels and Lenin. Plus the local party secretaries.

In the west it morphed from the Christian god to Christian saints to heads of states to political leaders to movie stars and rock singers.

If Trump says something, half the country swoons, the other half spits in his directions.

If M-Toe, or T-Bone J, or Pamela Lee Anderson says something, at least for five minutes the entire world will hold as much weight to it as to the words of Marcus Aurelius (the latter, a bit longer.)

So while the rabble can dethrone almost randomly a statue, an institution, and a person who is institution-strong, the rabble can also erect new ones, just as almost randomly.

Thus, equilibrium state is achieved in society, with as many people leaving celebrity status or at least leading roles in shame as many are entering in pride, due to the constant action of the social catalyst "rabble". Much like in chemical reactions, it is IMPOSSIBLE by by deterministic means to predict who is going to leave, and who is going to come in. The individuals in the process are indetermined and indeterminable before each event of the transition.

Why should there be charity? Can you provide an argument for charity?
— baker

Because nobody's perfect. Errare humanum est. When YOU make a mistake, do you prefer it not when people show a little charity? Or do you prefer to be treated without mercy?

Judge not, least you be judged.

Another argument is that, without things like forgiveness and redemption, societies tend to accumulate hatred until people kill one another. — Olivier5

Maybe there should not be charity. Yes, I want to be forgiven when I make a mistake.

Be judged, so you can judge others.

Without judgment social structure would crumble. I do keep to the law, because I fear the punishment after breaking it.

Without forgiveness and redemption, hatred will accumulate until people kill each other.

I don't think somehow that forgiveness and redemption could be enforced. It is great to have it. My uncle has it, he claims it's because he is a Roman Catholic, but I think he has it because he is that way inclined. Everyone has a degree of forgiveness for insults and damages, everyone has redemption and a feeling of lifted from sins, or moral badness, but everyone has this feature to different degrees. And whatever degree they are capable of it, is not going to change no matter what.

So since forgiveness and redemption can't be enforced, it is futile to wish for that. It is the same thing as teaching to a bunch of thieves and blasphemers the Categoricus Imperativus.

I sounded there like a nihilist. I am sure there is a fine line between nihilism and realism.

↪Benkei I suppose the problem with throngs of folks angrily pursuing social justice over the interwebs is that things are often more complicated than most people think. — Olivier5

From where I sit, pursuing social justice over the interwebs is pretty simple. You read the arguments, sometimes you make a post and then you call it a day.

That's about the size of it.

Social change is not always brought on by social will; mostly it's social economics that does it to societies.

In Russia they disregarded the role of economics for 80 years. The country went into an economic decline. It was economics that destroyed the left. Not weapons or coercion or the ruling class.

You can't disregard the role of economics, which is a system much bigger than what humans can handle. We cant' fathom it, we can't control it. It controls itself, and via itself, it controls people.

We, the People, think otherwise. Fine. We are fools.

I'll look for it on Netflix or the local library's DVD collection.

A prime example of this is in the movie Adaptation. Have you seen it? — frank

I haven't, but I heard of it. Apparently Adaptation was a movie adaptation from a short story with the same title.

Religion is philosophy to the extent it adopts & practices the philosophical method à la the scientific method which is, for simplicity's sake, use your head or, in formal terms, be rational. — Agent Smith

I will sound as a naysayer, but what you claim is precisely what religion denies of its followers.

"3-1 is Zero!" say the Christians. What is a reasonable person who uses the scientific method and his head, in formal terms, rationally answer to that? I say he'd say, "This is stupid." Then he gets threatened by getting burned at the stakes, if he does not withdraw and reverse his "opinion".

(in religious views by religionists) wisdom isn't valued as much as obedience. — Tom Storm

That's a type or trend in philosophy, if you will.

But my response to the OP's question is (basically the same as Tom Storm's) that people of philosophy like reason, logic, and debating; whereas people of religions don't.

Thoughts don't exist, the brain does. — Garrett Travers

Thoughts don't exist IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD, but the brain does.

That is a necessary improvement. Because thoughts do exist, albeit not in the physical world.

Proof:

I think of my child how he is lonely and pining for a beer while he is away doing his studies.

So I wire him some money to buy a bottle of beer.

My thought made me do something.

Something that does not exist can't have a role in a causative process. Only existing things can cause change in the chains of causation.

My thought, which was created by my brain, if you wish, is independent from my brain. My brain is physical, my thought is not physical.

Yet my thought did cause an action.

Therefore my thought exists. (Without being physical.)

It is true that any variation of the ontological proof must be suspect, since by their nature they seek to demonstrate the existence of something not found in their assumptions.

And if the thing they attempt to prove exists is in the assumptions, then it's circular reasoning.

Nobody can win. The game has been rigged.

-----------

I am not sure where I made a logic error in the above. If I made an error in the first place. If I was right, then it seems nothing in existence or out, has the capacity to be proven to exist.

Maybe this is the crux to the improbability of existence? If only I can be proven to exist, and my existence can be proven only to myself, then everything else is suspect for their existence.

And that is actually the backbone of the reasoning which validates philosophies such as solipsism, or skepticism, which deny the existence of the material world.

It seems easier to believe in God if it is female. — Gregory

Heureka!! PAMELA LEE ANDERSON!!! Of course. You can believe in a god, too, if you choose the image carefully.

It seems easier to believe in God if it is female. — Gregory

Thanks, i'll try that variation a few times and see how it fits my world view.

The Syrian Christians sometimes call the holy spirit a mother and yet she does not create the son with the father — Gregory

I wrote once a scathing humor-piece about the Trinity, in which the Holy Spirit was the mother. It is so wild, the short story, that it's completely unpublishable.

I got a piece of information, I don't know from where: My uncle, the devout RC could have told me, or I read it in some random place, that at one point the Vatican decreed that it was the Holy Ghost who put the whatever into Mary that gave her the immaculate conception. I am not sure how it was worded, which is unfortunate, because of the utmost importance of the wording, especially when one considers that the Vatican in general is not very big on explicit descriptions of reproductive sexuality. According to this version, all three manifestations of gods in Christianity are males.

Read the account of how Saul meets David. David plays the harp for him and they know each other well and then a chapter later he hears tale of this man David and insists upon meeting him, not knowing who he is. Interesting amnesiac event. — Hanover

You heard of Homer's works. The Iliad and the Odyssey were not written by Homer, but by a different guy with the same name.

The ancient world was vast. Stretched out. If Saul met one particular David who played the harp, he could possibly want to meet all the Davids that played a harp. There were not too many types of instruments, and Davids were a-plenty much like today. So.... this is an explanation to negate the amnesia-theory.

I admit I just admitted my ignorance by reducing the character of David to Harp playing, first name and geographical location. There must have been other attributes to David there, which most likely made him unique in the context.

My objection is to premise one of Flew’s argument. My counterexample would be faith. In Christian tradition, faith is a necessary component to the belief in God. — Jonah Wong

faith and belief in god is not evidence of god; it is the evidence that some people have faith in God.

From this realization, the rest of the argument against Flew's argument fails.

“Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1). — Jonah Wong

Faith is a belief. Faith can't bring certainty. Being sure of your faith is just that; not that the object of your faith or belief is certainly as you believe it.

It did kill the rabbit, the holy handgranade, after it had been lobbed on the count of three. Then the party gaily entered the caverns.

How and why and to what extent Greek culture was absorbed into the ancient Jewish world is not always clear, but that it was is undeniable. From the time of Alexander the Great in the fourth century B.C.E., Jews lived in a world in which Greek culture carried a certain prestige and offered a route to political influence.
Hellenistic and Roman-era art from the biblical world shines a spotlight on Judean identity and cultural influences during a formative period in the region’s history. From Hercules as trendy Israeli bathhouse décor to mosaics celebrating Helios, the sun god, in ancient synagogues, Greek culture permeated Judea.
It is even thought by some scholars that Jews in ancient times considered Helios a minor deity to whom they could offer prayers! Scholars are now weaving together evidence from archaeological sites and early Christian texts. Notes Lucille A. Roussin, A connection between the Jewish worship of angels and astrology is attested by many early Christian writers. According to the Preachings of Peter, referred to by Clement of Alexandria, the Jews, “thinking that they only know God, do not know him, adoring as they do angels and archangels, the months and the moon.” Origen writes in Contra Celsius that "what is astonishing about the Jews is that they adore the sky and the angels that inhabit it.”
As Professor Martin Goodman notes, “Outside of Jerusalem and Judea, Jews rarely treated Greek culture as a threat to their Judaism.” The lovely zodiac mosaic floors of Palestinian synagogues tell us that Jews had simply adopted those Hellenistic features that complemented their own worship, including Hebrew labels on the zodiac signs, and—according to some scholars—used images of the Greek sun god Helios to represent Yahweh, who has no form and cannot be represented in art, but is described in Jewish texts from biblical times as fiery like the sun.
Because the centuries immediately surrounding Jesus’ birth were such a formative period in Judean history, studying the Hellenization of Jewish and early Christian culture during this period is crucial in understanding biblical history. — Apollodorus

This is a fascinating summary of the influence of Greek culture of early Christianity.

I find it a bit not quite misleading, that would be too strong to say but... let's say peripheral. Jesus's thought and early Christian teaching focussed around:
- the acceptance of the holy trinity
- the elevation of everyman to the status of the highborn, in terms of how God looks at them
- the importance of moral behaviour
- and reward reaped in the afterlife based on Earthly toils.

This, around and based on an already established Jewish moral and religious substructure of faith.

If Greek thought was more than superficial and peripheral in Christian culture, I'd venture to say they would really have tried to avoid logical self-contradictions. This by me here is not a criticism of Christian faith; it is rather the view that Greek philosophers did not make an impression during and on the formation of Christianity. There would have been more philosophy in the New Testament, which basically is a teaching guide, for rote memory, not a road map or a programming structure. The guidance that the NT provides is authoritarian, and new at the time of Christ; tremendous inventiveness was there, but there was no arguments or convincing of others, no connection to what and how we know the Greeks thought. The angels, and later, the saints, indeed served in Christian faith as lesser gods served in Greek mythology and faith, but this similarity was borne not only to the Green faith, but practically to all polytheists faiths. It is a fallacy to say it was due to an influence by the Greeks.

I am not trying to convince anyone of my truth, but I do believe that the vehement insistence that Christian faith was connected to the teachings of the wise Greek philosophers is only a reference fabricated (falsely) to gain acceptance, reverence, and credibility, but in essence it's simply not there. Much like a young man at a party of common people would boast that his uncle is a physician, or that his aunt is a congresswoman, only for the belief, that it would garner more respect and also higher social ranking in the community.

This is my opinion, but I'd be trying to stop a speeding locomotive with my bare hands if I thought I could garner any support among Christian philosophers and historians to my opinion as above.

Very interesting way of looking at the historical Jesus. I don't resonate with your ideas, but you should not read anything into that; I am not a man of religion, and know almost nothing about religion. So your interpretation is compelling, that much I can say, but from where I sit, I am not sure how likely it could have been. Then again, like I said before, I ain't no expert, not even a novice.

He was assassinated in 1948. — T Clark

My bad. I don't know history. I failed high school history five times. I can't memorize dates, names, etc. So i gave up all efforts at one point.

So Gandhi was murdered, therefore he IS a martyr. I stand corrected. By suffering I meant his self-imposed hunger strike. That's about all I now about his life. And that he made love to (at least one) American woman, whom Elaine of Seinfeld fame visited a few times, as an effort to give back via a volunteer job, except Elaine could not abide by looking at the large thyroid gout on the neck of the woman, who was in her eighties or nineties at that time.

My take is to try and understand better what Jesus said — Olivier5

Brave and noble goal. I tried to read the New Testament, and got to a point a few times, where they started to quote Jesus, like when he goes out to sea with the fishermen. I got excited. Unfortunately the text did not say anything beyond words. My recollection: Fishermen: "We worship God, our God." Jesus: "FOOLS! YOU MUST WORSHIP GOD! FOOLS!" That was about the size of it. The passages I read (which was not many) and in which Jesus spake, there was nothing of any importance or revelation. It was a bit disappointing for me.

The most compelling resurrection story I read was in a book titled "Saint Saul A skeleton key to the historical Jesus" An incredibly riveting book.

I am impressed by the opinions of Foolso4 and Olivier. The martyr angle that evolved from a failed messiah story. Brilliant -- so by the ancient Jews or whoever who created Christianity, as by the moderns who uncovered this redirection of faith. I tilt my head to them.

Others may have argued the same, and if I left them out, sorry, my apologies. I just read two posts in this entire thread, and they were precisely the posts that resonated with me.

It was used by Gandhi
— Olivier5

Gandhi was not a martyr. Peaceful disobedience is not martyrdom. — T Clark

He suffered. Martyrs are supposed to die, for a cause, and Gandhi did not. True.

But he shamed some oppressors with the suffering he imposed on his own self.

The same that shook the world is the common thread between Gandhi and martyrdom.

That's why he said, "The age of martyrdom is dead -- it's been murdered by a new generation of passive-aggressive politicians."

Wittgenstein was saying that the laws of nature are not logically necessary - that they are contingent. Look at the context — Banno

I personally agree. He, however, did not exclude the possibility that the laws of nature as established by human scientists are right on. Maybe that's what "contingent" means. Contingent to me means "goes with it", or "seem to occur together", or "occurs at the same time as". However, Hume has established that several hundred years prior, so Wittgenstein can go suck an egg. Why he is revered to be such a great thinker will forever escape me. He simply paraphrased the obvious, or else paraphrased prior thinkers. He never made an argument or a logical proof himself. He stated truisms, but if you look at them, they had all of them been shown before him, so he had no original insight, other than into the obvious.

I quote Khaled. He has said this on page 2 of this thread. When Khaled refers to "it", Khaled means Bartricks.

↪GraveItty ↪SolarWind Don't engage it. Among other ridiculous claims, it believes that life on Earth is hell where the wicked are sentenced for punishment and that whatever happens to you here, you deserve it. It also believes that if you disagree with it its necessarily because you lack expertise, and goes around asking for qualifications without presenting any on its part. It also can't see the irony here:

When reality is at home?
— GraveItty

You can't answer a question with a question, can you?
— Bartricks

Engaging it is reserved for masochists. When you begin to get anywhere it will retreat to "dunning kruger" or "this is how it is present to my reason" but it will take you 70 posts to get to that point.

The only clever things that come out of its mouth are ad homs. Which I have to say are top notch. — khaled

The whole modern conception of the world is founded on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are explanations of natural phenomena. — Wittgenstein

They may be only an illusion, but they may be the illusions that correctly describe the world.

Wittgenstein did not prove the illusions wrong. He merely stated they are what humans do to figure out the world.

He used the word "illusion" but he failed to show that these illusions were invalid.

I hate: Wittgenstein, Socrates, Plato. I love Hume, Descartes, Marx.

There. I said it.

I also hate Rand and Arendt. Although one wonders how that can be, when one's name is the negation of the name of the other. (Something to do with the vague similarity of the spelling of their names that perhaps can be traced back by etymology to "Rand" and "Aren't Rand.")

You're right. That was totally stupid of me.

Do the other two examples stand on their right? I can't tell from here. I can't fathom the depth of my own thoughts.

The conclusion that the total information content of the universe from an absolute perspective is zero would jive with this depending on how you want to interpret it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

"...how to interpret it."

Interpret it. It what?
- the conclusion
- information content
- universe
- perspective
- zero
- this (what ever "this" is)

I don't want to join this thread because two of the worst writers of the forum (the other is @180 Proof) who are otherwise very intelligent, are incomprehensibly debating here. Let them misunderstand each other and frictionalize the debate on the grounds of completely missing each others' points, due to unclear writing.

Perhaps I am just not following the 'irony' of your chosen handle or your choice of representative Icon.
You suggest a god that has no self-belief and you use a Hollywood actor in a bad film as your profile pic.
Then you seem to defend theism.
Go figure! — universeness

I just calls them as I sees them. I don't have a dog in the fight. Or maybe I do; I am an atheist. However, I have spent an entire lifetime as an internal auditor for a bank, and if it helped me in honing any of my faculties, it is the ability to spot errors.

That is my calling on this forum: to point out errors in reasoning. I very much work on eradicating erroneous reasoning and false argumenting. Whether it helps the atheists, the theists, or the environment, or cockroaches, is not my domain of worry. My domain of worry is to point out false reasoning, that's all.

And by George, this website is a gold mine for doing just that.

A conclusion that makes sense is that it is better not to procreate more badness into the world then. A progress that devolves into pessimism, can take the form that life simply isn’t worth it, and ethically problematic to spread to another person. — schopenhauer1

Why would it be ethically problematic to spread it around, to other persons? Ethically it's a good thing to show that good things in history turn to bad. It is not a lie. Truth prevails. Is it a bad thing to spread truth?

On the other hand, it does not exclude the possibility, and in deed, the verified practice, of coming up with good ideas. Yes, good ideas turn to be bad ideas, but for some time in history good ideas do not lose teir status as good ideas.