I feel what people outside of certain Faiths need to realise, is that even within those faiths, consensus isn’t something they have internally. Plenty of internal critics and apologists in every religion.

Take for example; The current Popes attempts to reframe Catholicism into something a bit more neo, tolerant and accepting. Mostly due to an enhancement in the interpretation of Forgiveness by the Pope.

Completely agree. Authentic and non-hypocritical practice of faith and values I feel is respectable in most cases.

Whether theism or anti theism, either way one seems to claim a knowing of the answer, or in the least knowing enough to give an answer.

For those of us with a high standard for the criteria of what knowledge is, neither camp really deserves faith which seems to be central to both.

Agnosticism does this too, it however is just faith in the truth of the statement “I don’t know anything.”

Yeah, I took umbrage with that too and was given a crappy argument about how agnosticism doesn’t exist while the word was being used to claim the concept doesn’t really exist. Idiocy.

It’s like those students in first year college who say they are there to “disprove religion” at which point the professor inevitably just asks “so religions don’t exist is your claim?”

@Terrapin Station

What I've yet to figure out is why so many (a) religious believers, (b) idealists, and (c) continental philosophy fans are drawn to the board. Those three categories seem to cover about 95% of the people who post here. (And they're all like the Joker to my Batman)
— Terrapin Station

i believe the exact opposite. You are my Joker to my Batman. — christian2017

I see you both as members of the justice league and the joker is personified by the morally indifferent and apathetic.

Let me be clear though, Atheists get to be the Batman(obviously, no superpowers!) Christians get to be super man. Let’s all make sure our metaphors match up please! You know how I feel about accuracy in metaphors and similes.

I did a masters in applied ethics but I kind of regret voting and divulging that here. Dunno who the others are but one of those votes is mine.

Okay, I'm an atheist, but it seems to me that the quality of discussion on these prolific religious threads falls far short of 'philosophical debate' or even 'coherence' for participants . Even the apocryphal question about 'the number of angels who can dance on the point of a needle', would make better reading than what I have read here ! — fresco

I get where you’re coming from. Even the apologists and internal critics of faiths are wondering what the hell is going on with all the evangelical extremism of late.

I’m here to discuss, collaborate, debate and learn. What I’m not here to do is be ministered too.

I could make a crazy Taoist universalist post if I wanted to but I don’t and I wouldn’t. I like spiritual diversity, including atheism. Can the Mods please be a bit more liberal in coming down on rule breaks with some of the unresponsive crazies though.

That's kind of a logic joke. "P or Q" is true if either P is true, or Q is true, or P and Q are both true, so if someone asks you "P or Q?" and at least one (or more) of them is true, "yes" is a valid answer. So that's where "both" fits. "No" is, likewise, "neither". — Pfhorrest

Thank you haha flew over my head there! Should have a discussion on humour soon.

Did you get a chance to read the last link I sent you to the philosophical-feeling piece?

Encompass the whole of society and it’s structures in individual unity = force humans to conform to an individuals ideas of “unity”

“Everyone shut up and look at my magnificent ego!” Is pretty much what this post is saying.

Agree with this. The polling questions aren’t very well done. How can you answer yes or no to a binary choice between two options that aren’t yes or no? Why can’t Both be an answer?

As I like to say; those who claim adherence to one camp over another, are adhering to being half a philosopher.

There is a bit of an irony there; that if we acted out of care of the moral standing of future people we’d be benefitting ourselves in the present. I’d certainly like to breathe clean air in 20 years too.

While we can’t know much about the individual personal identities of future peoples, intuiting their needs should be fairly easy. Same needs as us in the present.

Creating real stability and balance across as many areas as possible is the best thing we can do for ourselves and future peoples.

Personally, I think non-philosophical rational thought isn’t something unique to humans. There is what is rational in relation to being say a crow or any animal really.

I think our ability for Philosophical-thought and Philosophical-feeling which may make us unique, however we don’t know if other animals don’t ask questions of existence in their own way. As far as we know, we are philosophical which is certainly different from our perspective.

That’s not to say our rationality isn’t of a better quality than other species in terms of tools, but that isn’t the same as other species not having forms of weak relational rationality.

What distinguishes humans from any other creature is their rationality. That’s the one essential feature. If something is rational, it’s a human. — Congau

I’d disagree. Crows have the capacity for rational thought, in that it has some powerful skills we’d call intelligent problem solving skills. The New Caledonia Crow can complete 3 stage tool based problems in order to get food. Crows have the ability to remember human faces better than we do, and recognise the face for up to two years after first seeing them. It was an experiment I saw on a documentary (just YouTube crow documentary) where researchers wore masks and then built a negative association to them with mask on so the crows would learn to fear the mask. When the researchers donned the masks again some time later the crows they were tracking recognised them, scalding and swooping at the researchers. Not only that, they taught their offspring to do the same when they ran the experiment later with the young adult offspring.

Many animals also pass the self awareness test by recognising themselves in the mirror. For example apes pass the self awareness test but not monkeys.

Other than that it was a really interesting answer :) What is rationality the Alien asks you?

Behold, I teach you the overman. The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, — 180 Proof

Wow, that’s pretty powerful. Don’t know if I’m reading my own biocentric ethical view in the meaning or not but it sounds like what I call god; the overman is.

We humans are a motley stampede of confabulating hypocritical herd animals, ambulatory skeletons of decaying bones ungainly shrouded with nearly-hairless rotting flesh, each of whom anxiously living out his or her days in anthropocentric denial of inexorable, ever-near, personal annihilation (& species extinction) via sacred taboos, cautionary fairytales, blood sacrifices & magic spells. We're terminally frustrated, commodity-fetishisizing, often cruel but mostly clowning, boozers & junkies, who, down the generations, are taught by inadequate neglectful-to-abusive parents to teach our own accidental, and often unwanted, broods to in turn become inadequate neglectful-to-abusive parents ad perniciem... — 180 Proof

So is a biocentrist not human by this standard or is a biocentrist merely a human practicing heraldry?

But how do you know that you cannot know? Do you know the answer?

Not the detail of how humans answer the question. Tell us now, it’s the last thing we need before we vaporise your planet. This one has been sent to our zoo to live with Tupac and Edward Snowden. Also, how do we mate them? -.-

Oh believe me, you’re in the herd. Not us here. The key features of the “herd” is arrogance, ignorance and a blind devotion and submission to the ego. Namely the nutcase at the tops ego.

Also, intellectual has two Ls. So Elite.

Or if it’s easier, imagine the question was asked by a small child who will understand whatever your answer is.

assume that the alien can read what is currently on your mind and you have to tell them like that. What images, videos, words, feelings and people would you share? What books, gods, religions, philosophy, science and technology? Assuming you can know it is merely curious and not hostile or malignant in anyway.

Would anyone be opposed to just being referred to as X?

“Oh hey, Davina is come to the party”
“Oh cool, is X going to be bringing a friend?”
“No, I’m meeting X beforehand and we are going together”

“I don’t think it’s going to end well,” Harris told the website. “You look back at the Old Testament and the relationship between the prophets and really bad leaders and kings, and oftentimes it was, it’s not something you unwind because it’s, it’s actually in the scriptures presented as God’s judgment on the false religion of the day.

“This is the leader that you want and maybe deserve,” he added. “That represents a lot of who you are.”

- Joshua Harris - https://www.rawstory.com/2019/11/ex-pastor-warns-trump-embrace-will-destroy-evangelical-christianity-i-dont-think-its-going-to-end-well/

Would anyone care to expand on what Harris means by this?

@Pantagruel Care to take a shot at this one?

might have some insights on Meinong's jungle. — jorndoe

And in the heart of Meinong’s Jungle, lies the little village of Southpark Colorado haha

Sticking more to the OP; in the sentence “Witchcraft is a type of supernagic” to me is describing not something of supernatural origin. It’s describing a large divide in practical knowledge between the perceived Witch and the perceived non witches.

Supernagic to me is just a way of identifying a huge chasm of ignorance between the entity being described thusly, and the entities doing the describing.

Give me a time Machine, a cigarette lighter, a pressurised can of flammable liquid, a gun and a hoard of modern Anti biotics and I have the power to be perceived as a god in much of the past so long as I keep everyone in the past ignorant of how I am performing these “Miracles”.

@Echarmion

3.1 Subsistence vs. Existence
Alexius Meinong’s theory of objects has had much influence on some contemporary theorists, resulting in a variety of proposals. These proposals are known broadly as Meinongian. According to Meinong, a subject term in any true sentence stands for an object (Meinong 1904). So the subject term in the sentence, ‘The sixth right finger of Julius Caesar is a finger’, stands for an object, assuming that the sentence is true. (Such an assumption is strongly disputed in Salmon 1987.) Even though the exact respects in which contemporary Meinongian proposals are Meinongian and the extent of their Meinongianism differ from one proposal to another, all of them inherit this claim by Meinong in some form. They are thus united in resisting Bertrand Russell’s criticism of Meinong, which mandates analyzing sentences containing a definite description, like the one above concerning the sixth right finger of Julius Caesar, as general statements rather than singular statements (Russell 1905); see 3.1.2 for a particularly famous piece of Russell’s criticism and how two leading Meinongian theories handle it.

Meinong distinguishes two ontological notions: subsistence and existence. Subsistence is a broad ontological category, encompassing both concrete objects and abstract objects. Concrete objects are said to exist and subsist. Abstract objects are said not to exist but to subsist. The talk of abstract objects may be vaguely reminiscent of actualist representationism, which employs representations, which are actual abstract objects. At the same time, for Meinong, the nature of an object does not depend on its being actual. This seems to give objects reality that is independent of actuality. Another interesting feature of Meinong’s theory is that it sanctions the postulation not only of non-actual possible objects but also of impossible objects, for it says that ‘The round square is round’ is a true sentence and therefore its subject term stands for an object. This aspect of Meinong’s theory has been widely pointed out, but non-trivial treatment of impossibility is not confined to Meinongianism (Lycan & Shapiro 1986). For more on Meinong’s theory, see Chisholm 1960, Findlay 1963, Grossmann 1974, Lambert 1983, Zalta 1988: sec.8. For some pioneering work in contemporary Meinongianism, see Castañeda 1974, Rapaport 1978, Routley 1980. We shall examine the theories of two leading Meinongians: Terence Parsons and Edward Zalta. We shall take note of some other Meinongians later in the section on fictional objects, as their focus is primarily on fiction. Parsons and Zalta not only propose accounts of fictional objects but offer comprehensive Meinongian theories of objects in general.

- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/possible-objects/#SubVsExi

Here it is! It was Meinongianism I was thinking of.

Well I think we need to have that sense else we wouldn’t be able to discuss fiction properly. Outside of books, saying “Harry Potter is a wizard” and saying “Harry Potter is a space Marine” are both equally untrue. However when we enter into fiction, what we are doing is entering into that universe of discourse; thereby making a contract with each other to converse as if the universe of discourse exists so we can make true statements about it.

I forget who’s work I’m basing this off; but I believe one of the terms they came up with to describe and differentiate existence with fiction and abstract ideas. I believe the term was subsistence. I exist, Harry Potter Subsists. We can also say God subsists as God has the same amount of influence on existence as Harry Potter does. Well not the same amount but they both share the quality of subsistence as opposed to existence.

With this in mind; Is it possible to get outside of the Human universe of discourse for us?

If you really want to end racism, abandon such archaic descriptors and embrace a more sophisticated and more accurate way of describing people. Describe their physical characteristics. Describe their religious alliances. Describe their cultural ties. Stop trying to combine all those distinct attributes into one all encompassing label such "white" or "black". — dazed

- @dazed

While I agree somewhat with the sentiment, when you said describe physical characteristics I immediately thought that skin colour is a physical characteristic and that people with Ginger hair still face discrimination.

I feel that physical description isn’t about describing the person it’s about describing the different ways being human physically presents itself.

Also, I’d say if we we are describing character traits we are still somewhat talking about physical descriptions. For example; I could say a person is courageous or I could say that they have a brain which allows them to be courageous.

Personally the only race I identify us all to be is human.

Do words not physically exist? Can we not say Harry Potter physically exists as a word in a book which is attached to our idea of Harry Potter?

That kind of hearkens back to Descartes' idea that science can make us "masters and possessors of nature." Personally, I see it as more of a coming into equilibrium, but in the same spirit as what you describe I think. — Pantagruel

@Pantagruel

I feel that Descartes here goes against your argument. He would see us as the masters and possessors of nature rather than its shepherds and protectors.

I agree with you though. Systems theory isn’t that big a stretch for me to believe from the Theory of Moral Ecology.

I think people need to understand that dominating and mastering things is a remnant desire from a world scourged with legal slavery. Our current systems are made with prejudice and inequality at their centre and this has coloured our entire perspective of our place in the universe.

It’s like how a lot of coders are white and Asian and so a lot of facial recognition software has a hard time with faces of other ethnicities.

Personally I’m in favour of making allies of nature and being keepers of balance in all things... but then I’m Taoist-universalist so I would say that haha

I want to know who has the Doctorate. Would love to pick their brain.

As soon as I hear someone self describe themselves as a holder of radical ideas or beliefs, I back away slowly.

The Ego trap is strong with this one..

@Banno Hahaha!

it’s okay :) thanks!

Guys, if you want to talk about Donald trump and the current presidential candidacies can you please keep your discussions in the appropriate threads.

This thread is for discussion about Only the US constitution and things surrounding that as they stand. All the official roles described should not be construed as the current holders of those offices but the offices themselves.

@Terrapin Station @Pfhorrest

Is that fair for me to ask guys? Either discuss the constitution or continue a discussion on your chosen subject in the appropriate post please.

I mean the definition at the time and now of Nonetheless and Notwithstanding to mean “Not hindered or obstructed by” seems pretty clear to me.

Then there is the opinion of Lawrence Tribe of Harvard university to take into account. Experts in constitutional law would all point to this being an originalist, historic and contemporary literalist and Democratic interpretation, which are four of the standard methodologies used to interpret constitutional law by the judicial branch. I can’t even begin to think of what the modernist perspective might be and I’ve tried but I can’t think of a semantic counter argument to “Not hindered or obstructed by”.

The whole DOJ line “Presidents are too busy to be answering to criminal indictments” but are not busy enough to not attend their senate trial is ridiculous to me and has no constitutional basis. It’s entirely undemocratic and completely compromises the systems of checks and balances put in place since the constitution was put into effect.

I know I’m preaching to the choir right now about the conclusion, still as far as I and a friend who has worked in law for over ten years can tell; the argument is sound.

The source links are all really useful. You should check them out when you’ve got the chance, I know it’s a lot haha

Uhm the White House transcript of the call is accessible to anyone

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

(S/NF) President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that. purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have, friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/25/us/politics/trump-ukraine-transcript.html

Pretty much starts with “Do us a favour”.

Are the opening statements going to change just because the rest of the testimony hasn’t been divulged? No, and they are pretty damning. I’d love to know what mental gymnastics you’d employ to deny the full testimony when it is available.

Unless they say anything other than “I lied in my opening statement” (which would be a crime) I doubt the rest of the testimony is going to divulge anything else. The opening statements are pretty much just summaries of what is going to be detailed in the testimony and that may only cover a small portion of it as testimony will largely be in the form of answers to questions in regards to the opening statements from the committee members.

Have you ever read the constitution? All the way through? I have, multiple times and I’ve done volumes of research on different interpretation methodologies used by the judicial branch and I’m frankly shocked no one has indicted a sitting president before. Nothing forbids it whatsoever, no forbidding language or details about timeframes allowed at all.

Probably because no one ever really expected such a corrupt menace to American democracy to be allowed into the Whitehouse. If the Judicial branch had any shred of honour decency left they’d have opened up their own investigation the moment the whistleblower report on Ukraine hit their desks.

Not to mention, a lot of members of Trumps government have willingly committed obstruction of justice by refusing to submit to subpoenas.

This entire thing is an absolute farce and I’ve yet to see one intelligent or thought out argument from you and not a single source for where you’re getting your ridiculous claims.

The testimony so far has seemed to outline a clear quid pro quo, even without quid pro quo a sitting president SHOULD NOT be requesting political dirt on domestic rivals from a foreign power! The transcript released by the White House and the whistleblower both match up. A crime has been committed and he can be criminally indicted by the DOJ or the state judicial branches.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6965/constitutional-interpretation-usa-article-i-section-3

There is zero room for any interpretation that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The DOJ is wrong and the memos relating to the question of indicting a sitting president are based on no arguments that fall in line with any of the methods of constitutional interpretation applied.

Indictment is NOT hindered or obstructed by impeachment, at all!

While I agree with you; that doesn’t change the issue of the constitution and how it relates to the processes of both Impeachment and Indictment, it is a key issue in both current and future political dialogues. It is essential, that the question of whether or not a sitting president can be indicted be examined and answered.

So based upon the argument in the OP, how would you vote? Can a sitting president be indicted or not?

Modified argument in the link below.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/comments/dqlooo/dear_doj_this_is_how_you_properly_interpret_the/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Modified argument in the Link below.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/comments/dqlooo/dear_doj_this_is_how_you_properly_interpret_the/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Just use whatever their fucking name is. Gender is a social construct, biological sex isn’t. However I’d prefer not to be him, I’d just prefer my name to be used. If we can demand anything, it should just be our name. Impersonal language in my opinion is always kind of rude if not offensive whether you identify as a man, women or gender queer space dragon. Just tell us your name.