Lunatics end up in power because sometimes only crazy people can stand to do what it takes to get to the top. If only the psychopaths survive the struggle, that's who will end up ruling. Nazi Germany, for example, favored the promotion of bright, loyal, psychopathic personalities. Heil Hitler himself, Himmler, Heydrich, Goebbels, Frank, Goring, ‎Ernst Röhm, etc. etc. etc.

On the other hand, it would appear that quite sane people are in charge of places like Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom and maybe France. At least, "quite normal people" are in charge IF, and only IF, the societies over which Putin, Trump, May, and maybe Le Pen rule are sane.

Erich Fromm (The Sane Society) argues that many societies (possibly yours) are actually insane, and that there is a reverse diagnosis system: People who can get along in a crazy society are deemed sane, and people who can not get along in a crazy system are deemed insane. If not insane, then at least redundant.

Europe and North America do not have a monopoly on crazy societies and crazy leaders. They are all over the place. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan... — Bitter Crank

So we end up with your original question as to why nuclear weapons are built and why would we allow crazy leaders to have access to them when we already know that nuclear weapons fit the paradigm in which man has for as long as there has been history has fought wars and for as long as there has been history we have lived under dictatorships and plutocracies which very often have crazy people in power.

Perhaps if the people in the world got to see the effect of a few more nuclear weapons (as well as how much POWER than have then the one's dropped in Japan at the end of WWII) go off in major metropolitan areas we would do things a little differently but even then I don't know if that would make a difference. Human beings sometimes learn from their mistakes but we are not that good at learning from mistakes we have yet to make, even if they could end the world.

Right now, the only thing keeping things in relative order is int he event of a major nuclear war to top 5% to 1% would have to scrounge and scrap much like the rest of us animals do nowadays in order to survive (where as those of us who already do that DON'T have to worry about having to do that as almost all of us will already be dead, or at least the lucky ones will be). And for those in power, the very thought of having to live like the rest of us do is something worse than that so they are VERY motivated NOT to have a nuclear war. So in the end it may be greed and the desire to maintain existing status quo that keeps us from nuclear war than any real humanity coming from those in charge of such issues. I'm sure that is something pleasant to think about at night before someone goes off to sleep.

I think you missed the point; the only person who can satiate your ego is you, considering you choose who you interact with. For instance, the concept of the "crazy cat lady" is a reference to people who substitute human relationships with animals since a cat is not going to respond to your flaws and in your own neurotic way believe that it actually cares for you. If you like the company of people who compliment you especially when you don't deserve it, of those people who never show you your flaws or open you to your mistakes, of those who don't challenge you emotionally and intellectually, and if you associate with people that you can - and willingly - lie to or manipulate (because you have zero respect for them), you do not mirror yourself with another person as part of a genuine human relationship, but you mirror yourself to your own ego and as such you will never improve. A signal of this narcissism is almost always anger or some other self-defence mechanism to the very person who points out your flaws. — TimeLine

I definitely understand your reference to crazy cat lady since one of my sisters is in her 60's and has four cats of her own. To be honest, I'm not really the all knowing a-hole that I sometimes pretend to be online and I think I'll tried explaining this in the last couple posts, although perhaps not too effectively.

If your really worried about it, I can tell you that I've had more than my share of people to put me in my place and obviously my ability to sometimes act like a jerk (at least in real life), is merely a preemptive attempt to put myself at a higher position (or equal position depending on one's point of reference) in order to to keep OTHER low-life scum bags from being able to take from me whatever they want.

But on the forums it is different since there is NOTHING someone can take from me other than perhaps my online reputation, which isn't worth a rat's backside. However, I sometimes act like a jerk (although not too much of a jerk or a newbie that would get me banned) just so that someone like yourself may have the desire to to want to knock me off my soapbox. You see if someone intelligent such as yourself (and I can tell your at least sort of gifted/intelligent because your post are probably more..articulated than that of the average person on the street if they tried to post) actually wishes to put be down, they can POTENTIALLY find flaws in my beliefs. When I first started studying philosophy for the first few years I went through several paradigm shifts because I realize certain things I believe were..not the best way to perceive the world around me, and because of that I decided to change my views to conform to a new view instead of vice versa.

However this has gotten a lot more difficult to do the longer I have been doing it. Most of the stuff I either already know or merely have to re-remember it instead doing any real kind of paradigm shift that I use to have to do. I don't know if any of this makes sense, but in a nutshell one of the reasons I still study philosophy (when instead I could just move on) is either to see if there are any more paradigm shifts I need to go through and/or as a form of sanity check.

Because of this I am more than HAPPY if you can tell me what it is that I believe that is WRONG so I can fix it, but right now I don't know if there is anything I believe that is wrong or if you just think I think of myself as some kind of special snowflake or something; and even if I did think of myself as a special snowflake, over 50% of the people in the US believe the same thing so I'm unsure how it would be really that much worse for me to be doing it if everyone else is doing it as well; and/or as I have explained I do it because I have to, not because I want to.

And perhaps try modelling yourself to absolutely nothing, meaning, by visualising no one either physically or intellectually to enable the real you to manifest, rather than searching for versions of possible "you" through others and simply mimicking them. — TimeLine

After reading this a couple times I'm not sure what you are saying or even if it applies to me. As far as I can tell I have lived my life the way I think I should live and only occasionally rely on the way other people do things in order to determine how I should live my life. If either everyone around you is a failure and/or does things in way way that you can't do them you are force to be creative and often a contrarian in how you go about life, if for nothing else nobody has the time to show you how it is SUPPOSED to be done.

Hi, happy we agree here. — Cavacava

I was so tired last night, I miss read your post and thought you were trying to call me 'happy', and didn't know what to make of it until I got a little more rest. I guess it is a good thing that try to pause and/or reread certain posts in order not to sound too much of an idiot. X-)

There are many people out there that surround themselves with morons who don't know the difference between their left and right hands so that if they lie and pretend to intelligence, the applaud of these people where your every word goes straight over the heads is nevertheless enough to satiate your ego and make you feel highly intelligent. You have those who are cruel or vicious and yet falsely pretend to kindness as they manipulate with precision specific actions that they can publicly demonstrate in order to show themselves as unique and kind. People play games with themselves and one another, with false prophets and prophetess' everywhere - that when they are confronted with the reality that they are not so smart and not so kind after all, when their ego is hurt because their game is exposed and their sense of delusional grandeur is shattered, they can get rather angry. — TimeLine

I'm kind of glad that none of what your saying really applies to me since their is nobody either on the forums or elsewhere who puts any effort into satiating my ego or make me feel better than any other pleb. In fact there are aspects of my life where I'm not treated any better than any other transient so the fact that I can even talk as if I'm as respectable and honorable as any other non-transient is a good thing since the alternative is worse. Personally I think of myself more like someone like Diogenes then someone like Socrates or Plato, since I'm not really sure they existed in the way they are supposed said to exist (ie. they may have wore rags and been a bit disheveled at times), but with Diogenes it isn't that hard to believe that he lived the life they claimed to live (either out of a barrel or out on the street) and it isn't that hard of a model for someone studying philosophy to model themselves after if they wish to.

You speak as though you are humble and yet refer to yourself as the unknown known comparatively a reference to someone supposedly "wise" whereby you apparently spent ten years studying this very subject that you know more about than most people. I'm not swinging my fist at you, I am just showing you that you are not as wise as you think you are and from what you wrote, I highly doubt that the last ten years were well spent. — TimeLine

You misread what I said, I said that I know there are known unknowns as well as unknown unknowns; this type of nomenclature was use by Rumsfeld during the Second Gulf War:

There are known knowns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns

As to whether I have spent part of the last ten years of my life well, that to me sounds like something that would require for you to know more about me to make a proper assessment. Then again as someone partial to nihilism, I realize that there is a good chance that over half the people alive may not serve any purpose whatsoever (whether by choice or by other reasons), so the idea that perhaps part of the last ten years of my life studying philosophy wasn't that productive would be something to be expected and the norm then something I have done really bad on my part.

Nations seek to maximize their interests and advantages. As we have seen, pursuing security, dominance, favorable trade agreements, access to resources, and so on have resulted in "killing lots of other people in another country" on a number of occasions. Because the winners are well rewarded, it has been worth the risk.

We may or may not use atomic weapons in the future. But atomic weapons are only the most powerful-per-pound weapons. Conventional weapons and good organization coupled with determination can reek enormous havoc on any country that is in somebody else's way. The firebombing of Tokyo, for instance, was about as bad as a nuclear explosion. The Nazis managed to mount an enormously successful war effort without nuclear weapons.

It's unreasonable to expect that in the future we will all be nice to one another, and war, of some sort, won't happen. If we are lucky, we will establish the means to conduct wars without using the nuclear option. (How likely is that? I wouldn't bank everything on it.) — Bitter Crank

I think the reason is that ANY country pursues nuclear weapons is that it makes it difficult for ANY other country to think that they can take them down with conventional forces and weapons without having to worry about said country retaliating with a nuke or nukes. That may not seem like a logical reason but when you think about how much some countries are willing to spend on their military budget while at the same time letting their own people starve, it may not be as crazy as you think. Like my brother (who use to be a military analysts who had to deal with certain issues involving countries that we are..nervous about) use to say "It is better to rule in hell, that to serve in heaven" or at least for some people.

A lot of people in power got that way through using brinkmanship and letting other people worry about what may happen; kill them all and let God sort them out, so to speak. I don't know if it is crazy to think that since history shows nearly an endless list of psychos ending up in power that it will automatically change in the near future just because someone invented nuclear weapons. Perhaps if more people in the world had some option to pursue a life more in line with what they would like their life to be then maybe fewer crazies would end up in power, but I'm not sure if that is true either.

You have it all figured out. :-| — TimeLine

In the area of that I spent over ten years studying/debating philosophy and know about it as much as anyone can the answer is "yes". However like Socrates who was the "wisest" man in Athens because he at least knew that he knew nothing at all, I know that there are both plenty of unknown knowns as well as unknown unknowns, as well as human fallibility/human condition that I can't do that much about. But at least I have some idea of where the field of play is and where things are out of bounds so to speak.

So if I look like a little girl trying swinging her fist whiling trying to run into a bunch of bullies on the playground when I debate, all I can say is that this far from the first rodeo I've been to and I'm almost thick skinned enough to handle almost any debate that someone wants to give me.

Well not really, it's just a convenient way of putting it - rephrase it all in terms of nature if you like. The point is, if crime didn't pay, criminals wouldn't commit it; if kindness was rewarded, they'd do that instead. — unenlightened

I think I can sort of agree, every person in their own way does what they think is right (criminals committing crimes to punish the weaker and/or strong for whatever reasons, and the valuables they steal is their just payment for the work/risks they take) as well as people NOT being kind because they feel that such actions will likely create more problems as well. However this begs the question as to whether this is the will of God or if it is caused by nature.

To this I have something I like to call the virus theory in that the perceive/moral agent can never know whether their actions are really "good" or "bad" but still has to be moral agent of some sort. The idea is that since life itself is dependent on DNA/RNA but errors with some of these slices of code are the cause of viruses (ie the DNA/RNA and their duplication mechanisms have no idea of what they are for other than a cells duplication mechanisms knows in it's own way that it is their job to duplication certain part of the DAN/RNA code to support a cells function) it stands to reason that beyond a certain threshold we can only speculate as to what certain unknown knowns and unknown unknowns mean and we are unable to really account for such things. That plus human fallibility as well as the human condition as well should be enough to give most human beings pause in deciding what their actions should be, given of course said person knowns enough about such issues and has time to pause while making a decision.

I think Kierkegaard referred to this as part of the reason man is afraid/does not want his own freedom is at any moment the could become "unhinged" for whatever reason and become a Frankenstein type monster, just as Bruce Banner would change into the Hulk when he got too angry/stressed out. I think many people would be more than willing to sell their souls and/or whatever they can do to make the world a better place, but at the same time they are hindered at the idea as what they may become once they step outside of the world they are use to and potentially becoming some kind of monster that they fear if they for some reason are ungrounded.

I don't know if this is the same thing as you are referring to as God not making it easy to know what is or isn't God's will but from what understand of the bible, God gave Abraham one of the greatest trials he could give a human being and from what I understand about what you are saying and from the things I just said, these things more or less apply the same way to the ordeal that Abraham went through.

Well that explains why morality is not science or economics. There is no choice about the rules of science, step off a cliff, and you will obey the law of gravity - believe it or not. — unenlightened

Or it could also mean we are still too ignorant for it to be used as we would like science. At the moment "We do what we do, because that is the way that we do it" (ie. morality is somewhat arbitrary in regard to certain issues), but THEORETICALLY at least if we had better understanding of our universe and a better hedonistic calculus/game theory to work off of perhaps we could do a little better. Perhaps Nietzsche said it best with this quote:

""Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...
What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under..." --Nietzsche

We may not be the end process of that which has come before us, but hopefully we will all for something to come after which will be able to overcome SOME of our shortfalls to some degree. Of course, this is not a given either but merely a hope.

If might makes right, then even wrong is "right" if might makes it so: anything goes.

Unsurprisingly it can be in the interest of the mighty and their lackeys to make everyone believe that might makes right, as a means to maintain their might.

Another kind of might, however, is the might of being right: when right makes might. — jkop

That's a little too simplistic as well. If one has might that makes them right, right up to the point when when an angry lynch mob has MORE MIGHT and and gets a hold of your sorry backside and strings you up, at which point THEY ARE RIGHT. Or as some people sometimes put it, live by the sword - die by the sword. Which may (or may not) be the best circumstance given certain situations.

I think you have to elaborate as to how "right makes might", since in my experience might can take many forms and although might obviously "makes might", it is in no way a given that right does unless one is using the would "right" as a synonym for one of the various forms of might; such as I used for the lynch mob; which of course may or may not actually be 'right' under various circumstances.

Mariner on the old forum explained this rather well in religious terms. If goodness was always rewarded and evil always punished, then it would be mere selfishness to be good, and even evil people would be good. It is the business of government to try and arrange things in this way, so that there is less evil in the world, but it is not natural, or God's will. God will not purchase our virtue by bribery, nor compel it with punishment. The law of nature is that the scum always floats to the top, and the precious metals sink to the bottom. — unenlightened

That is of course assuming that there is a "God" as well as assuming that is his will in which neither one is really a given when one considers all the other potential possibilities. Also IF God exists and what Mariner says is true then morality is merely "arbitrary" then even following God's will is neither here nor there, because God happens to be bi-polar and some days decides to punish those that wish to obey him and reward those that rebel and other days vice versa. It is also ironic that supposedly he didn't wish to reward those that tried to make morality consistent yet that is EXACTLY what he happened to do with science making it so that people that can follow the rules of SCIENCE be able to get whatever rewards they they need IF the obey the rules of nature and physics well enough to build factories and what not if one tires of having to pray to a God who one moment wants you to pray to him and the next minute will punish you for doing so.

Or maybe the whole bi-polar God thing is just an excuse created centuries ago in order to deal with questions and issues that where to complex at the time, and they merely left it at that because it was too difficult to accept that the world , as well as morality, is often FAR more complicated than we wish it to be. Although when I think about it, having to deal with either a very, very complicated universe or a bi-polar/mad God neither option sounds that great. Perhaps it is best for me to just leave this post with Nietzsche's "fellow creators" quote since I'm sure he was able to put it into words more eloquently than I can:


"Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks -- those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

I am agnostic, so my "if" is meaningful, because I am not sure if there is a God or not, however I am sure that a 'logical' God it is a fantasy, perhaps a necessary one but still if your conception of the divine is some sort of logical magician, happy trails. Logic is fine, it is important for knowledge, but it is not in my opinion extensive with experience, it can't explain experience. All the logical conundrums fall flat in the face of experience, and life goes on.

The only necessity is contingency...show me otherwise :-O — Cavacava

I think I more or less agree. :D

I kind of both agnostic and atheist on certain things since I know I can't prove there is a is or isn't a "God", but I'm also pretty sure that many theist go about such beliefs the wrong way. I guess I look at the issue this way Abrahamic religions "claim" they both know "God" enough to be able say both what he is about and what his will is, however it is a given that anyone that believes they know such things is a real secret squirrel if you know what I mean. Even C. S. Lewis admits that if Christ thought he was talking to "God" and he wasn't he would be "a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg". Even worst than Christ is Abraham who was willing to kill his son in order to appease a "God" that he wasn't even completely sure to exist.

The problem is that neither Christ, or Abraham, or any theist can have complete confidence in their invisible God that they worship. They only know that after a certain point they either have to reject that God exists or deal with the issues if he doesn't exist (and they are often indoctrinated to believe if he doesn't exist there is no point to anything anyways), so they choices they have are either continue believing in God one way or another or to try to understand what the world is like if there isn't a God.

Even though I'm partial to nihilism, I believe the reasons we do what we do are more or less still about as valid if one is atheist/agnostic as when one is a theist ( and in some ways even more so since we have to create a kind of "salvation" by ourselves instead of expecting God to give it to us) and the future of what may be could depend on what happens to the human race instead of everything being predetermined as they are if "God" existed.

In a nutshell if "God" exists, things are kind of simple and the outcome of world/universe is more depend on "God" than on us. However if it is only us things are much more complex and perhaps there is a lot more riding on our shoulders; of course this is also dependent on how many other sentient beings are also out there..

It is not a law of the universe that good will prevail. On the contrary, the greedy, the violent, the selfish, generally run rings round the kind, the generous the, peaceable. But this does not make evil good, or vice a virtue. — unenlightened

Agreed

On the other forum account I had as one of my quotes on my footer the following

“Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied,
And vice sometime by action dignified.” ― William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

Virtue blindly followed can become vice if one isn't careful, and vice when used properly or the right time could be acceptable (even if it isn't virtuous). I wish I could find the quote I'm looking for where
Kierkegaard mentions that certain ethical choices are like "walking a tight rope", but I was unable to do so at the moment. I guess that I can leave it at that simply doing 'good' or 'evil' actions themselves are either 'good'/'evil' but it is the context that such actions on done that determines such things; and unfortunately we are not always privy to which is which under every circumstance.

If you ever seen the movie "Primer" (where two guys invent and create a time machine in their own lab), who decide to use their time machines under certain rules and end up having to break their rules as well as their friendship in order to do what they felt was "right" even if it wasn't what was ideal for either of them. I guess such a dilemma is a situation where normal ethics don't really work, and instead they end up having to walk Kierkegaard's tight rope between ethics and faith, or perhaps something else.

Well, the first stage is splitting the argument of Thrasymachus into the view of the governor and governed. Socrates points out that they will not agree with each other on what justice should be. He then argues that justice is an ideal principle that should be the same for all, whether they are those in power or those who are governed. That was the first assumption, and most people through time have decided that was right.

When challenged with how people know what such law should be, Socrates later said some people discover it by finding a state of internal harmony. the test of whether the knowledge is true is whether the inner harmony results in outer harmony, which can only be known to those who are by nature philosophers. That was his second assumption, and over time most people have decided that was wrong, but as Plato wrote, only a few people ever discover that, so that was in fact in agreement with what Socrates actually said too.

Socrates' own conclusions as to an ideal political system were however based on everyone accepting that philosophers were wise enough to know when inner and outer harmony are achieved. That has not been shown the case, because people who are not philosophers, as per Socrates' definition, assert that they are, but disagree with Socrates. So the system failed on that case. And that is a very rough summary of the Platonic view on politics. — ernestm

I believe that most plebs have agreed that justice should be equal for all, however this is not the case for those who have power and can use it in order for themselves to get some leverage. In George Orwell's "Animal Farm" the animals come up with the phrase "All animals are equal", which is then changed to "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." when the pigs secure their position of power. The "Animal Farm" I believe is a commentary of the state of society as well as a bit about the human condition.

Whether or nor there can be "justice" when the plebs believe (or forced to believe) in it, but those in power use their resources to circumvent it is debatable. However I believe it is at least noteworthy to point out the why it may be true that "majority" of people may respect the idea of justice, the people with power (and perhaps the only one's who CAN choose to accept or reject justice) more often than not reject the idea of justice when it suits their needs and undermines any justice that may of been had. Which also undermines the whole theory of most people CHOOSING to accept justice be dished out equally, although it doesn't completely undermine it and is more of just an issue with the idea.

If the first principle is undermined then it is unlikely that the others would be obeyed either. I think it is kind of a mixed result because there is no standard definition of a "philosopher" as it is not a title that anyone can give themselves. There are those of us who study philosophy and perhaps write about it, but try to avoid claiming to be a "philosopher" as it is only something that someone can say that you are and not something you can declare yourself to be.

However even if those in power don't always use philosophers, they do employ advisers who sort of fill a potential position for a philosopher. Also some people in power choose to either be educated or learn enough to be a philosopher themselves, but I'm sure this is not the same thing as getting council by a philosopher. Whether or not advisers or being educated/self-taught are "close enough" to having advice from real philosophers (since rulers even before Socrates's time already used these tactics), I thought it is worth mentioning that although they may not use actual "philosophers" it isn't true that they don't use anyone who fills a sort of similar capacity when those in power rely on some kind of adviser who is often an expert in one or more fields.

Socrates ideals work when people more or less have no choice but to accept them, but doesn't work so well when people have a chance at of creating double standards for their own advantage.Whatever this means if one was to compare what Socrates believes when compared to what Machiavelli says, I leave that to you and anyone reading this to decide.

My own opinion, which I dont think counts for much, is that it is rather pointless to argue philosophically when someone has a gun pointed to your head, so from an academic stance, its rather pointless saying anything more about it than Socrates does, and I dont really regard Machiavelli as much more significant, philosophically, than Mark Twain. That is, one may find his rhetoric engaging, but as there is no metaphysical grounds for his view, it doesn't really amount to much more than a polemic. — ernestm

Well I guess I agree that having an academic discussion with someone pointing a gun to your head will not work: unless perhaps you are someone like Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction.

In order to understand your position better could you specify the certain ideals of Socrates you are referring to? I have not had a lot of experience with either ancient and/or Greek philosophy so my knowledge of it is a bit limited.

In the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument Dr Craig boldly asserts that "whatever begins to exists has a cause". What does he mean? What does he mean by "begins to exists"? And what does it mean to cause something to begin to exist? People don't usually talk about things in terms of "begins to exist.", and I never heard somebody say "x caused y to begin to exist". Let's look at an example:

When did you begin to exist? (You mean when was I born?) I was born April 30th 1994. What caused you to begin to exist? (You mean what brought me into being?) My parents had sex.

How about instead of "whatever begins to exist has a cause", "everything that I'm aware of has been brought into being by something else". The only problem with that change of premise (if it's true) is that you can't argue from me being aware of things having a cause of its coming to be, to there being a God.

What are your thoughts on this first premise? Do you see anything weird or suspicious in how it's phrased? — Purple Pond

There are two other concepts that deal with the same issue. The first is Dependent Arising and the other is Münchhausen trilemma

Dependent Arising
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da

Münchhausen trilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

I'm sorry I don't have time to put it in my own words but here is some of what is said in "Münchhausen trilemma" on Wiki:



"In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics. If it is asked how any knowledge is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three options when providing proof in this situation:

The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts
The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.

The name Münchhausen-Trilemma was coined by the German philosopher Hans Albert in 1968 in reference to a trilemma of "dogmatism versus infinite regress versus psychologism" used by Karl Popper.[1] It is a reference to the problem of "bootstrapping", based on the story of Baron Munchausen (in German, "Münchhausen") pulling himself and the horse on which he was sitting out of a mire by his own hair.


....



In contemporary epistemology, advocates of coherentism are supposed to accept the "circular" horn of the trilemma; foundationalists rely on the axiomatic argument. The view that accepts infinite regress is called infinitism. Advocates of fallibilism, though, point out that while it is indeed correct that a theory cannot be proven universally true, it can be proven false (test method) or it can be deemed unnecessary (Occam's razor). Thus, conjectural theories can be held as long as they have not been refuted." -Wikki

that is the second topic ever written about in Western political philosophy, and this is pretty much the standard discussion of it within the last century.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4181704?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
— ernestm

I think I agree with Socrates analysis in that "raw power/desire" isn't always the BEST way to resolve what should and shouldn't be done, but there needs to be some kind of temperance of one kind or another to better understand what OUGHT to be done. Or another way to put it, raw power+nothing= less power when compared to power+temperance. It is the same as the idea as a battle or war will not always go to the country with more men and resources but instead it MAY go to the country who is best able to use such resources.

But Machiavelli already takes this into account when he talks about two aspects of the prince needs to take on: the first one is a gentle and kind person he portrays to the general public and the other one is described as the "fox"/animal which is the one who..is willing to break a few eggs to make an omelette so to speck. If you have the first without the second the prince is either a fool and/or just another pleb an may not have what it takes to rule. If they are the second without the first they become monster and too much of a threat so others who will likely work together to bring them down.

But other than that what are you own opinions on this subject? Since we are discussing "morality" and what are the proper judgement calls to make your opinion is likely just as valuable as the people your quoting. :D

Because thinking is active, it's the realization of being, but what is, what exists is passive because it does not necessarily think. — Cavacava

But doesn't the term "I" require that it is a given that there be some OTHER thing that EXISTS in order for there to be an "I" in the first place. Everything we know about how things come into being is through other things that allow them to be and even if our world was merely a virtual/illusionary world it is pretty much accepted that it to would require something other then the individual itself to exist in order to create the world they live in or to create an illusion of one at least.

I guess one could try to argue that it is plausible for us to be trapped in an illusionary world created by the individual themselves, but if one was trapped in such an illusion the part of themselves creating the illusion would not be thought of as themselves since it is highly unlikely one would want to be trapped in an illusion; even if it is of their own making. Why it is also plausible for some sentient being to happen to be in control of the ENTIRE universe (ie. "God") so that they and the world around them are one and the same, this is NOT a situation that any normal human being would have any experience in nor is it a given that it is even possible.

So in a nutshell, it is a moot point that an individual can consider themselves to exist (even if they may have no idea what they are referring to when they say "I" or "exist") , because we already know that SOME kind of existence is required to create a "thinking-thing" (whether it is a machine or living thing) but it is also a given that this "thinking -thing" will ALSO require something to support i and/or allow it to exist so the external reality outside of the thinking-thing has to be just as REAL as the existence that allows the "I" to exist.

I read something just this morning which bears, in an interesting way, on your question. It suggests that what is expressed in the 'cogito' is a synthetic a priori understanding, and not merely an analytic tautology. It is from Deleuze's Difference and Repetition as quoted in Kant and Spinozism Beth Lord page 145:

The entire Kantian critique amounts to objecting against Descartes that it is impossible for determination to bear directly upon the undetermined. The determination (‘I think’) obviously implies some-thing undetermined (‘I am’), but nothing so far tells us how it is that this undetermined is determinable by the ‘I think’. … Kant therefore adds a third logical value: the determinable, or rather the form in which the undetermined is determinable (by the determination).

This third value suffices to make logic a transcendental instance. It amounts to the discovery of Difference – no longer in the form of an empirical difference between two determinations, but in the form of a transcendental Difference between the Determination as such and what it determines; no longer in the form of an external difference which separates, but in the form of an internal Difference which establishes an a priori relation between thought and being.
(DR 85–6) — John

It has been awhile since I read stuff about Kant's work on the subject you are talking about, but I remember liking what he wrote and his analyse on thought to be very good for the time he came up with them, and even pretty valid for today. I may be wrong but I remember his methods where more about how thought works, how it is organized, etc. and how visualize and/or create models to better understand issues involving such things. It is kind of reminiscent of classed in programming languages or database management are taught where someone has to be taught to understand some abstract concepts pretty well, but yet may not be able to have the time to understand every detail of the underlining system or code.

I guess part of my frustration in dealing with philosophy is similar to my problems in IT where people would often have issues dealing with dealing with the difference between how they thought it worked and how it actually could work. And people such as myself and other IT staff would get caught in the middle.

↪dclements Well, if you really want my own opinion, I do find the entire focus on 'the self' as the basis of knowledge very solipsistic. Regarding the arguments on Descartes, so many people have already expressed their opinions on it, I have nothing original to add. My own opinion, for whatever its worth, is that people should be less concerned about what they know about themselves, and more concerned about what other people think of themselves. But that is more a topic for psychology than philosophy currently. — ernestm

Fair enough, I think our opinions on this are similar enough to not have to argue against you.

One small nuance is that I think it is 'ok' for debatable philosophical issues to sometimes delve into real world things like psychology, nuclear physics, etc. as long as the issue isn't too much more in the domain of the specialist in that field than the people who study philosophy.

For example one of the topics that seems to be between the middle of psychology and philosophy is something I refer to as the 'human condition'. It can be thought of basically as the various quirks and odd nuances that human beings have to deal with going about in their day to day life, but it can be used as a catch-all phrase to also refer to a lot of the ..not so small issues such as the many, many non-trivial problems we have never been able to solve (and perhaps never will be) and the toll it takes on us in our lives being limited by such a thing.

While there be some nuances that are better left for psychologist to deal with, the issues of the human condition is a problem that I believe is best addressed in both philosophy and psychology.

Sorry ernestm, I didn't realize I was talking to you. :D

We have butted heads enough on similar topics that you can disregard the last post I made. The issue I pointed out is merely a nuance and merely something I pointed out to try and make my point. However since I have troubled you enough in the past, I don't want to cause you any more headaches than necessary.

"whatever, I don't argue with informal opinions about standard philosophy based on people's own intuition, its a waste of time."
—ernestm

Then why did you bother to post YOUR OWN INFORMAL OPINION if you believed it doing so would be a waste of time for you and the other people reading it?

I imagine you believe that your opinion may not be as much of a waste of time as the opinions of others, but obviously if that is how you feel it would be a bit of a double standard as it would mean only your opinions mattered and not any others.

Also since the majority of philosophical topics revolve around what people think about them more than what can be proven you would be neglecting many topics even if you were willing to discuss who said what regarding some subject but nothing beyond that as some academics sometimes try to do when they are supposedly 'experts' in such subjects.

I could be wrong, but I imagine your response with 'whatever' is more likely merely a means to avoid dealing with a potential issue with that I have pointed out a fallacy than your unwillingness to consider 'opinions' in regarding various issues in standard philosophy. While I can understand such a method of dealing with such a problem (were you may or may not be willing to think about an issue at a later time), might I suggest another and that is to either not give a rat's backside about making errors and/or have it one of your goals while studying philosophy to find out you are in error in one way or another.

The reasoning for doing this is simple, in philosophy (at least in this kind of setting) there are no grades, no metrics or anything else to really prove one thing or another so actually being 'wrong' from time to time is pretty moot. The only goals I can think of is either to learn yourself, to teach others, or sometimes merely do a sanity check if one has been doing this for awhile. For me I realize I spend enough time merely shooting from the hip instead of worrying about what I'm saying to be overly paranoid about being wrong and/or worrying about what others might think. Also if anyone on a forum believes your position is weaker due to making a mistake every so often, then it is likely they are new to philosophy and/or are too full of themselves anyways so their opinion is moot either way.

IMHO, the almost all the topics in philosophy that DO MATTER are the ones where people have to use their opinions (and overcome biases) in order to better understand the issue at hand. The issues that only require someone to recite text or cook book stuff like it is some kind of scripture too simple because the questions and answers are in the format used mostly in high school and/or college where as many real world problems require the kind of critical thinking were there are no black or white solutions to certain questions and problems.

You may try to say "I cannot doubt that I am doubting" is circular, but according to formal logic, it is not. According to current theory, AFTER you make the statement, you seek empirical evidence, by asking the question, "was I doubting?" to evaluate the proposition. At that time, the referent is to an activity in the past, and therefore the argument is not cyclic, but rather, a valid reference to a past state. — ernestm

The problem with this is that 'cogito ergo sum' is only supposedly only valid in the present tense and with the person both saying it and evaluating it, not in the past tense and/or another person evaluating the statement. A normal human being can not ever be sure another person is merely an illusion, nor can they be completely sure that any of their past memories are an illusion as well. Your argument that it isn't a circular argument is flawed because being able to NOT DOUBT that one is doubting only works in the present tense not in the past tense. When it is in the past, it is a lot easier for a supposed thinker to question whether it was they who was doing the actual doubting.

Part of my own personal reasons for doubting the whole 'cogito ergo sum' thing is BECAUSE of all of the exceptions,issues,nuances, etc with it which tells me that it only works if it fools us into thinking it is telling us something that it really does not. If there was some 'truth' behind it it would neither have so many hiccups nor would it be so moot of a truth (ie truths are SUPPOSEDLY something more than a moot point, otherwise they are not even worth knowing) in the first place.

Is it the case that all disagreements come down to Metaphysical beliefs (and faith in those beliefs)? Is it possible to come to any agreement on any issue, when the root issue is Metaphysics? — anonymous66

I sorry I'm late to this thread and hopefully my post won't be too redundant. I think if one goes about trying to get everyone to come to a common agreed upon beliefs/morals etc then we already do, it will be a bit of a tough battle; but perhaps to work with what people already believe and very, very slowly sometimes even taking several generations slowly assimilate people of different religions or systems of belief to work better together.

Part of this is due to the fact that a lot of people are not able and/or willing to change their ideology at the drop of a hat. As a person partial to nihilism, I can tell you the many times I have tried to explain my views to others only to come back nearly empty handed.

Maybe another way to look at the problem is that anyone has to be pragmatic (as well as hedonistic to some degree) and even if people come for different ideology and cultures, almost all people are concern with their welfare as well as the welfare of others who happen to be vital to their own welfare in some regard or another. Although it isn't uncommon for people to be indifferent and/or hostile to those who they believe are not important to their own welfare.

Out of curiosity, I'm kind of interested in what topic you are having difficulty in discussing the matter with your classmates or other people you are dealing with.

I agree with your OP but I believe you are only partly aware of what is going on. Capitalism and the golden rule isn't about ‘Do unto others as you would have done unto you’, which is really some kind of socialism, instead it is about "He who has the gold makes the rules".

Capitalism has almost ALWAYS been about trying to give as much leverage to the merchants or business owners to give them some leverage over their countries leaders while protecting their backsides at the same time; while also at the same time doing next to nothing for the poor and working class. In the end, Capitalism is just a watered down form of Machiavellianism (ie the strong using and abusing those weaker than them) where it supposedly isn't 'right' to use violence to get your way, or at least if that violence is focused on those who have wealth and power in the country where they are a citizen.

In reality we don't even live in a real capitalist society since 'free trade' is about as rigged as the games at the casino and almost no matter which game or how a game is played the money eventually all returns to the house. As far as I can tell, we live more in a plutocracy than a democracy, and/or our social model is merely Serfdom 2.0 since most of the working class are no better than the wage slaves at the start of the industrial revolution.

I could go on and on, but most people are too brainwashed to really care and the ones that do understand are too few to make a difference or at least at the moment. Anywhere if you or anyone reading this does care or want to know more please check out the link to a YouTube video called "Poor us" (it focuses on some of the issues around poverty in the world) and the MotherJones link about both the inequality in the US and it's continual growth. I wish I had time to say more, but I realize there are already many on this and other philosophy forums that feel the same way so I shouldn't spend too much time preaching to the choirs.

It's the Inequality, Stupid: Eleven charts that explain what's wrong with America.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

Plutocracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

Poor Us: an animated history - Why Poverty?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxbmjDngois

Wage slavery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

"When tautology is another expression of identity, it doesn't seem like a tautology as such.
As per Gassendi, really all that's determined (deductively), is that there's cognitive activity.
That is, while thinking you can conclude thoughts exist (with certainty).
I'm still fairly confident that I exist, though. :D"
—jorndoe

As I mentioned in last post, it seems reasonable to accept that it is plausible that in order for something to 'think' or process information it requires some physical form. This is part of the reason I believe that mind (and/or "spirit") requires a physical form in one shape or another. However the fact that thought requires some form doesn't make it a given that this 'physical form' is anything really like we assume it to be.

For example, if you are a brain in a vat and you where interacting with a virtual/illusionary world there really wouldn't be a 'you' in any shape or form that you currently assume there to be and it would be hard to determin how your actions and efforts where anything more than being completely moot. In effect if one was really in such a situation (or more accurately could be called a prison if they know nothing of it) then the 'you' you assume to exist would be more or less really non-existent. While one might assume that if all their life was a dream and they where stuck in such a dream that there could be something to it which would allow them to call it some kind of "existence", it is almost a given that such an existence couldn't and wouldn't be any better than that of a character in a video game who only exists in that virtual world and has zero significance outside of it. IMHO the only reason I imagine someone would choose to say such an existence could have some importance would be to avoid the existential problem of what to do if one is trapped in such prison and/or how their own life is really not that different that already.

In a nutshell, the form/characteristics/attributes/etc of one's existence is as important or perhaps even more important than merely if one exists at all. Knowing the former but not really knowing the later is pretty worthless in my opinion.

"It is, but it is a concealed tautology. To discover it we have to apply Nietzsche's critique in Beyond Good and Evil to it, and reduce all of the controversial moves. The Cogito that remains after it dodges the critique is a tautology, but is where the necessity comes from.

The short road to that argument is to point out that Descartes quite happily, in the second meditation, points out that he is nothing more than this thinking, such that if the thinking should stop, then he would cease to exist as well. This is how he get's around the objection that it hasn't been established that the thinking belongs to him (he could just be tuned into some radio frequency). He identifies the "I" with thought, saying they are the same thing.

He then goes on to define thought in such a way that nothing escapes its definition: thinking (in language), perceiving, feeling, willing, denying, refuting, accepting..... Basically, anything that can be taken as self-presently existing - the "given" as such. He needs to define thought in this hungry way to avoid making a conceptual determination (that could always be doubted - how do you "know" thought is such and such, and how do you know that this such and such is an instance of thought, defined thusly?), which was Nietzsche's third criticism.

So, if there is "something" then this something is called thought. If there is thought, then there is an "I". The "I" arises via the transitive property from the simple fact of existence, showing it to be a complex tautology." —John Brady

Since Descartes was around before Kant, and Kant was foolish enough to think that the "Categorical Imperative" was anything more than non-sense on stilts (or I should say the people of his time thought it was worthy of any serious consideration), I'm not that surprised that he felt "I think therefore I am" was real philosophy. Also to show how well he was thinking that day, he also believed that coming up with that thought somehow proved that there was a "God", even if he was more likely than not well aware of the fact that he, and everyone else has no idea of what God is as well as the impossibility of proving something exists if one knows nothing about it.

I believing thinking proves there is a definite plausibility of existence (since we are unable to reason HOW something can think without some kind of physical thing in one form or another) but the problem of WHAT existence is or what form "I" take is left unresolved so I might as well be reading the phrase "I think therefore I am' out of a book and imagine the author who wrote it imagining that they believe that they exist when the passage could have been from my own imagination.

Probably even bothering to take notice of this stuff is moot in of itself since it is probable that many people reading it (even those who consider themselves as some one who studies philosophy) have no clue as to what I'm talking about. For me it is only worth mentioning as to how bad Western ideology is if we keep using as an example of 'good' philosophy/critical thinking when it should be obvious how badly flawed it is.

Oh, and I tip my hat to you for bothering to read Nietzsche's work and to use his thoughts on the subject in your post. I remember several years ago having one of his books and reading various parts of it when I traveled when I was a little bored. Two of my favorite passages (which also happen to be in the Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri:

Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks—those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest.
— Friedrich Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"

Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss. A dangerous across, a dangerous on-the-way, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous shuddering and stopping. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under. I love those who do not know how to live, for they are those who cross over.
— Friedrich Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra",

Ok, so maybe using quotes I know from video games isn't that impressive, but what he believes and talks about is closer to the truth than almost all of the philosophers that came before him and still better than most of those who have come after. If it was possible for more people like him to know what he knew without it driving him absolutely crazy maybe the world wouldn't be as messed up as it is.

The term comes from David Kaplan – LD means 'logic of demonstratives.' His classical example was 'I'm here now,' but that one seems not quite to be a case, depending on how you construe 'here.' For your examples, (1) and (3) would seem to depend on how you construe the tense, and (2) is liar-paradoxical where it's the first thing someone ever utters (and the tense is interpreted in the right way), no?
— The Great Whatever

Ok, I think I understand what you mean now how "I think therefore I am", not being tautology since the statement doesn't really equate to 'A' equal to 'A' the same why as the statement " I am what I am" ( I think Popeye says that) does. If that is what you were saying then you are right, I was wrong and I sort of get what you where trying to argue; at least I hope I do.

I guess if a statement is ACTUAL tautology (as in the logically sound type they teach in 101 Logic in high school or college) then technically it can not be wrong, grammatically speaking at least, because it conforms to laws that we impose on logic. However since "I think therefore, I am" isn't tautology then it doesn't even do that so that fact that it isn't tautology doesn't really hurt my argument since it is still possible for it to be a fallacy of some sort.

Which brings me to my question for you; you mention the liar's paradox which I personally think the statement is neither a lie nor a truth since the statement the speaker is referring to doesn't exist. Sort of like having a dangling memory pointer in C programming language not referring to any ACTUAL memory address and therefore the no-existent memory can not even be tested if used to tested when checking a True/False condition and instead would throw an error.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that "I think therefore, I am" has the same problem with all epistemology questions/problems in that it can not overcome the Münchhausen trilemma where we have to assume something that may not actually be a given. As you said if the speaker for some reason just appears out of nowhere and utters the statement (and then disappears the next second of something) then the statement may not be true in the typical sense we think of when we think of as 'here'.

Münchhausen trilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

In my thought experiment I like to use a cluster of advance tech high powered servers running multiple instances Artificial Intelligent agent programs each sharing time space on the same various machines. If once of these programs happen to think to itself (either in it's own simulation or some other circumstance) "I think, therefore I am", it wouldn't necessarily be the same as if we said or thought the same thing ourselves. For one thing the concept of "I" in such a situation is pretty convoluted enough say there is an actual "I" beyond the illusion that is created for the AI, and the idea of it "existing" is merely an illusion as well since it is plausible that during 99.9999% of the time it was trying to utter the statement the program it resides on was sitting doing nothing other than waiting for other processes to finish. I know saying all this is a bit anal retentive, but it is something that most people studying philosophy (or at least the one's that eventually become skeptics, which I think are the majority) already know and that is that the simple 'truths' we accept and use in our day to day lives (such as the sun rising and setting every day) are more or less true almost in every condition, but even the most simple most obvious 'truths' that we accept are real are themselves contingent on various knows, known unknowns, or even unknown unknowns and because of that it is more realistic to just accept that nearly nothing is a given when it comes to real life; not even death or taxes.

I think that there's an important sense in which the cogito is not inferential. You read Descartes, you follow his arguments closely, and you're supposed to see the cogito in a flash, as it were. The idea is to lead you up to a point where you can't deny your own existence by making it visible to you in a particular way. You could certainly argue that Descartes is accomplishing this by means of inference, but the inference is incidental to some extent. He's trying to get you to acknowledge your own existence, bringing that out of the substratum by means of a self-referential thought-process. That you can self-reflect proves your existence, and (Descartes hopes) you can't deny that you're self-reflecting while in the act of doing it.
—Pneumenon

Exactly! :D

I wish my wordage was as clear as yours, but at any rate you have summed up the issue in a way that if someone reading it understands what your saying they can decide for themselves whether Descartes was correct in that one can at least hang their hat on the fact that they at least they know that they exist ....or they can choose to think like me that there is something fishy with his position. Also it should be noted that even if one "knows that they exist", it is a given that this doesn't really mean anything. We don't know if we ate merely a brain in a vat, if the 'reality' we perceive is merely a illusion. or even what we are really referring to when we utter the words 'I' or 'exist'.

My personal belief is that Descartes is guilty of using similar logic as Thomas Aquinas when he created his Cosmological Argument, which supposed proves that "God exists" even if we have no real idea of what we are talking about when we are talking about "God".

At any rate I know that it is likely that more people will believe that Descartes knows what he is talking about than me. but my hope is that at least some people will think like you do and realize that it is a problem that is at least debatable with rational discourse from either side.

A circular argument still isn't a tautology. A tautology is a single sentence that's in some sense 'always true.' An argument relates premises to conclusions and so can't be just a sentence.
—The Great Whatever

I think you may be just trying to split hairs here since if an argument for some reason commits one fallacy instead of another, technically that itself could be an issue but in the larger picture of whether there is a fallacy or not is the more important problem at hand.

To be honest I not as concern as to which fallacy happens to be as long as there is an actual fallacy or not is determined as as long as the fallacy that is first choose is close enough to what it may be. I have been in too many debates where I've have to argue over nomenclature/ verbiage/ etc that I have grow tried of it even if it sometimes increase my vocabulary.

If you can agree as to whether or not there is a fallacy I guess I'm willing to correct the issue of whether I have chosen the right fallacy for it to be, but if you don't believe there is even a fallacy to begin with then whether or not it is tautology is pretty moot.

Thinking is always being,
being is not always thinking
—Cavacava

And you know this how? While not living things 'think' as we do, it is a gray area as to at what threshold allows something to be classified as a 'living thing', and from there at what level it has some self awareness, and after that sentience. Whether or not a non-living thing is a being like a living being is other question that really has no answer. While it is kind of safe to assume that something you see exists, I'm unaware of anything of any argument that state that it is a given that the thing-in-and-of-itself exists as we perceive it to exist. Or at least I'm unaware of any good argument that states this.

As far as I know, we do not the attributes that are required to allow something to think nor do we really understand which attributes are required for something to be. While for the sake of simplicity we can make certain assumptions, but it isn't a given that such assumptions are true under all conditions.

Also, to get clear on this, an argument can't be a tautology. A conditional with the premise as antecedent and conclusion as consequent can be. — The Great Whatever

What if it someone's argument is using circular reasoning?

Perhaps you can give an example of what you are saying is or is not an example of tautology so I know where you are coming from on it.

Philosophy is a form of critical thinking, or perhaps critical thinking is a form of philosophy. Any time someone has to do some kind of intense thinking or due diligence in any field it has the capacity of touching on philosophical topics. Critical thinking has also been described as "thinking about thinking", which is also true of certain aspects philosophy.

I don't know exactly where simple/mundane thinking stops and philosophy/critical thinking begin, but I believe as long as there are situations where people have to think for themselves, use 'critical thinking', have to 'think about thinking', etc there will be a need for philosophy. Hence it is a given that the idea of "philosophy is dead" is a bit premature given that there has never been a time in history where people use (as well as misuse) critical thinking and the aspects of philosophy that need to be understood to process such thoughts.


That is IMHO at least. :D

It is somewhat tautology. A bachelor is a man, but a man may not be a bachelor because he can be married making him not a bachelor. If I where to have to say whether it is or isn't tautology, I would have to say it is because bachelor is a synonym for man and nearly any time you declare a synonym is the same thing as the word it is a synonym of I believe it to be a kind of tautology; even if the words are somewhat different.

Even if a statement is potentially informative (such as " A bachelor is a man") it can still be tautology because it is merely true because we say it is true and/or merely true syntactically.

Words are synonyms of other words they are like because that is how we label such things, however whether two real world object we think are synonyms with each other is an entirely different ball of wax as far as I know of.

For example "I think" is a declaration of that one is a thing that thinks, "therefore I am" is a statement that supposedly shows if one thinks they exist; however there is no real explanation as why this is so. The explanation is obfuscated in that it has to be derived from the initial statement "I think". "I" is obviously some kind of object (perhaps either mental or physical depending on context) and "think" is an attribute/aspect of this object.

When combined it ,along with the context it is used in, means some kind of "thinking thing" but it also mean thinking thing for a first person/ or narrator's perspective. Whenever we are talking about a first person/ or narrator's perspective, it is pretty much a given that the narrator/ writer/ first person perspective is a real thing even if everything else is imaginary in their story just as it is assumed that the person reading a story is real (at least in regards to themselves) even if everything else they are reading is fiction.

Because of this ":I think" really means "I'm a thinking object that it is a given that it exist" and "I am" expanded means "therefore I am an thinking object that it is a given must exist". Descartes's argument I believe is tautology because there is nothing to explain "how or why we exist" other than the fact that it is a given the first person or person speaking from a narrator's perspective is assumed to exist; regardless of the how or why it is.

One can even 'flip' the argument by saying the outside world must also exist in some state because it is something 'other' than ourselves that we can (or more likely forced to) take notice of. Even if it was merely all an illusion, there would have to be something creating the illusion (just as there has to be something allowing us to be or creating an illusion of ourselves) of the 'other' thing than ourselves. Even if one wanted to argue that the outside world could be merely a figment of our imagination, it couldn't be any more of a figment of our imagination than our imagination makes of our own existence. In the end it is obvious that the outside/'other' is as real as the thinking thing we associate with ourselves , even if in Western culture it is a given that the latter that is considered more important and not the former.

I suggest you start by looking up the definition of axiom on the Wikipedia.
— ernestm

There is nothing in the definition of axiom on the Wikipedia that I can determine what it is you are trying to get at. I know there are axioms that used in math and logic, but it is obvious that I'm talking about ideological/narrative axioms which are more or less the same thing as dogma. I think my argument ties directly into what Wikipedia says about dogma, and their page on axioms has a link to their page on dogma for a clarification on what non-mathematical/non-logical axioms are about.

Wiki-Dogma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

If this isn't what you are trying to get at please be a little less obtuse because it is difficult to guess what your argument is you are unable to explain it, and any guess I make will more likely than not be a straw man if I don't know EXACTLY what it is that your trying to get at. As far as I know, nobody is really good at guessing at what someone else's arguments are.

"In talking with others, it appears I need to make a real clarification

While it may be your opinion that the assumptions of the formal school of logic are invalid, that's nothing to do with whether my opinion is correct. In fact, nowhere did I even state my opinion. I just observed, from the perspective of formal logic schools, the 'post-truth' method of defining truth as used by Trump is meaningful, but of little merit. That was my observation, for which purpose, I summarized the thought of the school, hoping that it would be understandable. Certainly a summary cannot capture all the finer details of the views, and I welcome any suggestions how to change what it says to make it more understandable and more accurate.

But its not actually anything to do with my opinion. I don't actually believe my opinion is of any real significance. I was just describing what other people think and made a new observation. That's all. The same was truth for what I wrote about natural rights. For this I was called things like 'pompous' and a 'fraud' for which I really do not have anything further to say. Thank you for reading."
--ernestm

I agree with your position, and your claims that human fallibility makes it difficult to know 'truth' when it comes to certain subjects or when we are making certain moral claims (or at least that is how I interpret some of your statements), but I think myself and others have somehow failed in certain other things to really explain the issue properly

In Modern/Post-Modern philosophy there is something called a narrative or context that explains many of the things around us and can be thought of as a mixture of ideology/ culture/ religion/ and other types of system of beliefs. They are built on something that is sometimes called axioms (ie self evident truths), but many of these (or perhaps most of) of these self evident truth are merely fabrications created to maintain the status quo and/or social order of society. To be honest I can not say that there ISN'T an axiom that is actually true, but every one I have encountered to me seems to based on human opinion and/or desire and seems to be a means to justify our own ends; even if they are really not justified.

I guess as a skeptic I'm so opposed to axioms that I'm almost as militant when it comes to arguing against them as the people that are militant in supporting the axioms they choose to believe. I may be a jerk in saying this, but ALMOST all ideology/religions/system of beliefs seem to be a kind of hedonism in one form or another and the 'morality' we create around it is used as a facade to hide the true nature as to why we do things. I'm not saying that there isn't any way for human beings to be 'noble','good', 'empathetic' one way or another, I just think that the people are that way do it because they are that kind of person and not necessarily because of proper moral beliefs.

"We do what we do, because that is the way we do it" and because we don't really know any better.

Focusing on proper 'ought's (which are created due to axioms in the narrative we chose to follow) regardless of their consequences is merely tautology and leads to various fallacies. I wish I could verbalize this better, but I'm unsure how to.

Anyways, as I said I still agree with you but hoped to kind of clarify things a little better.

So i've found myself in a loop hole of questions , i've been trying to find out what is the purpose of life, but there are thousands of "purposes" some say happiness, some say love. But that brings up the question, why do we need happiness and love. happiness and love is a feeling created in our brain by certain chemicals and is a part of our anatomy. What is the purpose of any life existence, however i presume there is no answer for this question we just are, as everything is....
—joachim

The answer to your question (as well as every human being who asks it) is simple our end purpose or goal is to become God. The problem is it is far beyond our capacity (or at least that I know of) to either become God or often even God-like. I know for people that are theists it is could be considered heresy to even claim one can become like God, but knowing God and becoming like God are in some ways not entirely different. If one is agnostic they might just split the difference are choose to understand what God may be, but yet behave in a way where they do what they must regardless whether there is or isn't a God.

My suggestion is if trying to become like God (regardless whether you are or are not a theist) isn't your cup of tea at the moment, I suggest reading up on Søren Kierkegaard's 'knights of faith' as it might help you realize what it is you need to do. While many consider a 'knight of faith' purely in theist terms,
Kierkegaard's knights could be devoted to any cause; including those that are diametrically opposed to theism itself. Some examples of possible knights of faith include Alexander the Great, Diogenes, Jesus, Abraham from the bible, Joan of Arc, Don Quixote (although he is a fictional character), Leonardo da Vinci, Kierkegaard, Mark Twain, Nietzsche, and Rasputin. Although this is a long list I should note that it is only POSSIBLE for some of these to be an actual knight of faith, Kierkegaard wasn't even certain that anyone could do enough to be an actual knight of faith although putting ALL of one's time/energy and hope on something and being an actual knight of faith may not be that far apart.

I guess that one thing is certain about one becoming a knight of faith it requires one put a cause above one's own welfare and possibly even one's sanity and it is almost a given that the trials one goes through are far from trivial. Also it isn't known whether or not the success one has while trying to be a knight of faith (success in the real world that is) is what makes them, since success can obviously come from doing little my guess is it is the trials themselves that eventually make or break on; although actual success my help one's efforts be remembered and/or further one's cause..

Sorry I'm late in my reply...

Yes, I think you more or less have the idea I'm working from. My moral beliefs partly comes from the Jain's doctrine of Anekantavada / 'no-one sidedness' no matter how crazy another persons moral beliefs may seem and the problems that come from Kant's 'moral imperatives' which can horribly contradict when analyzing the consequences of ones actions. As far as I can tell CONSQUENCES are the only metric that can be used to determine whether an action is good or bad, however we as human beings are WOEFULLY INADEQUATE at determining the consequences of our actions in anything but the most trivial of conditions.

Also it is my personal belief that it would HELP if everyone realized that every action (other than some of the most trivial) requires a MORAL JUDGEMENT CALL where IT ISN'T a GIVEN that we can KNOW WHAT IS THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION TO TAKE. I know this sounds like some basic stuff on a certain level but it can get a lot more complicated than it sounds. I mean how may times is someone sure of what is the 'good' or 'right' thing to do, such as persecute people thought to be witches, and then later they find out that they were TOTALLY wrong.

Also I don't expect everyone to become a skeptic or nihilist (more or less like I am), but it might help if more people gave a little bit more pause to some of their actions (and/or were a little more swifter in others if the potential consequences require it) and perhaps used a little more critical thinking when making a judgement call before carrying out certain actions.

Than again my it is all just me as I feel like I'm in a world of crazy people that can't see the various problems that need to be fixed and other issues that could or should be ignored for the time being.
As a person partial to nihilism I think I wring my hands too often for my own good, and I should just not give a rat's backside to many issues if I can't do anything about it. However the difference between what I can and can not change is enough for me to fret over things some times as I do.

"Not sure about this. For example, it's clear that disease is bad; that's not something that is only accepted as a result of cultural indoctrination.... rather, it's the result of getting sick and finding it unpleasant."
—Banno

I'll try and explain it this way, the difference between what we think of as 'good'/'bad and what is objectively good or bad when dealing localized conditions and one single action often could be merely moot issue. However when dealing with a variety of actions and their complex consequences that pertain to the entire welfare of a group of people or the human race as a whole then you get into something that could be a non-trivial problem and where our idea of 'good'/'bad and what is objectively good or bad could be very different.

For example in the following YouTube video the author of it claims that the Black Death actually HELPED human civilization due to the overpopulation of Europe a the time.

What if the Black Death Never Happened?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1aULu6BqNs

Of course anyone having their love one wouldn't agree that having their love one's and around 30%-50% of the population die from the disease wouldn't tend to agree that it is a GOOD thing.

That which we think of being good for ourselves and the human race as a whole is usually considered 'good' (since it is somewhat difficult to imagine anything else being good other than something helping other non-sentient life or perhaps sentient life if we could find it) but that which may be good or bad for us in the short term may translate into something else in the unforeseeable future.

With trivial moral issues it is 'ok' to accept either Kant's moral imperative and/or one's own judgement being 'close enough' to 'objective morality' to not really sweat the details. However with much larger issues they could be a part of the whole bigger non-trivial issue I mentioned earlier, which turns what we think of as 'good'/'bad' into merely either what we think is useful for ourselves or perhaps merely a best guess as to what might be either good or evil. Theoretically if one is omniscient they might be able to resolve enough of the non-trivial issue to be more objective than we are, however as human beings it would be too difficult to know it that is even possible.

Also while a bit unorthodox there could be reasons why one's own concepts of 'good'/'bad' could be radically different than 'normal morality'. Examples of this are if someone is merely a 'brain in a vat' (ie none of their actions due anything since the world isn't real, nor are their consequences real), or they could be a real secret squirrel and believing harming people is 'good' and helping people is 'bad' (sort of like the Joker when he tries to attack Batman and innocent bystanders as well).

While this usually isn't an issue (I hope), it should give enough pause for someone to wonder whether they and others are more alike the red and white blood cells helping the body as a whole or if they are more like a virus, disease, and/or parasite by undermining the greater good. While the people that were killed by the black death where not parasites, the society and technology of the time couldn't maintain the population grow and their demise could have helped the 'greater good', even if saying that it is 'good' that millions of people dying a horrible painful death during the medieval period isn't a pleasant thing to say.

"Whoever would be unaware of human fallibility?"
—Wayfarer

I don't know for sure, but I guess perhaps the people who claim to God, his will, what 'good'/'evil' is, as well as claim to know the answers to many other non-trivial problems could be some of the people that are not that aware of human fallibility. Of course this is just a guess.

While these are the *basic* forms of truth, the truth of many statements rely on combining two or more these forms together. For example, most commonly believe they know that the sun will rise tomorrow. This is based on empirical observations of many prior days where the sun did rise, leading to the simple second-order deduction that it will rise again tomorrow. Logically, one cannot know whether the belief is true that the sun will rise tomorrow until after the event has occurred. But in most cases, when sufficient empirical validation of many prior similar events has occurred, it is loosely assumed true that the same future event will occur again in the same circumstance. This 'axiom of probabilistic certainty' is the foundation of prediction in much scientific theory. The extrapolation of this axiom is the creation of the scientific method, which is designed to define the minimum number of observations necessary to corroborate a theory. As per the rules for causal truth, theories can only be corroborated and not be proven true; but modern science theory might still call a theory true based on the axiom of probabilistic certainty.

Beyond that, there are some other very specific forms of truth in philosophy. For example, there are 'self-generating' truths in linguistics, such as promises, statements of intent, contracts, and some statements of belief, which all become existent by their own statement. One should be aware these kinds of truth have limitations. For example, after making promises, it becomes true that promises were made, but the truth of the promise itself remains an indirect proposition, and still must be determined within the rules for the three basic forms of truth described above.

Truth in theology, morality, ethics, law, and metaphysics

Much confusion about truth has arisen in these fields, but by the above schema, the nature of truth itself is relatively simple. Theological systems make assertions about that which cannot ultimately be proven; morality strives to define that which is good or bad for an individual; ethics defines that which is good or bad for a society; law strives to define that which is right or wrong; and metaphysics strives to define that which is real. In all these cases the absolute truth of the assertions they make is undefinable. However within each of these disciplines, it is possible to evaluate the propositional consistency of statements within formal systems that they define; and from that, to evaluate the truth of their propositions empirically, within the formal systems themselves. so again, when different propositions within, or across, these disciplines contradict each other, it is not possible to evaluate which are true or false in absolute terms. It is only possible to demonstrate whether the claims by each system are coherent.

Close enough for me. :D

"True" and "truth" are words that are not so easy to define (even though we use them all the time and may even think they're simple). In an attempt to gain some clarity about them, I want to try to restrict them to what is clearly the case, and where they turn out to be limited in scope - or where they seem to be maybe not so clearly the case - try to sharpen the focus on them so that they can still be used, even if with some limitation. Let's see if some rules help. It seems to me there are really just three ways to respond to rules:
1. agree with them
2. modify and improve them
3. demonstrate where they're wrong.

Of course one may also dislike them, but that's neither here nor there. If we can establish or agree to some rules, then maybe we can test some things some of us think are true. If the rules are any good, perhaps we can learn something. — tim wood

Umm, Ok

Here goes:

1. Reality is real.
a. Only reality is real
b. Only things are real
i. For the moment the test of thingness is if in principle it can be felt, seen, smelled, heard, or tasted. Here, at least, neither numbers, love, justice, nor any ideas at all, are things.

Saying reality is 'real' is merely tautology or like saying a Cat is a Cat; you can say it but it doesn't show or really do anything. My personal preference is to label "non-real things" as mental and/or abstract concepts. If anyone reading this is a programmer they can a liken a mental construct as a database record as well as a abstract concept as the database metadata that describes how that record is structured (ie a mental concept of a mental concept). While there are additional nuances to this idea, it is safe to say I mental perceptions of a real thing may have aspect to them that make them similar to the real thing, they most likely do not match completely enough that we can be sure that the mental construct and the thing-in-and-of-itself are one and the same.

2. Language qua language is descriptive only. By language, here, I mean meaningful sentences (MSs) of the general form S is P. For an MS to be true, it must accurately describe some aspect of reality, that is, be descriptive of a thing. Because no description can be perfectly accurate, no MS can be completely and absolutely true. And any MS can only be as true as the description is accurate.

Language is just a system where we create,organize,etc various mental constructs, which includes labels. Whether a street is "Main Street" or "Broad Street" is almost completely dependent on how which choose to call it. Numbers are also a kind of label as one can is just called one can if it is by itself but the group of can it is with is called something else when they are together. As far as I know labels are almost always arbitrary and merely used to organize the world around us in order to help us perceive it. Whether it is raining the sky is blue or whether it is raining this is something I think of as a physical attribute of some thing and this attribute may have a descriptive aspect of the real thing but that isn't a given.

Labels can be thought of as variables used in a database record to store arbitrary information about someone or something (such as record ID and/or employee ID) and attributes as a variable used to store real and/or non-arbitrary information (such as employee age, weight, height, etc). I don't have much experience with this but there are gray areas as to what is arbitrary and what is not such as employee name since while it is really arbitrary it is so rare that it changes that it can almost be considered an attribute. At any rate whether there is a grey area or shouldn't make too much of a difference.

However, read on.

3) Within language, rules matter. We can start with the rules of identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle. Call it logic, for that's what it is.

4. Language applied to ideas can also be true, e.g., 2+2=4. But "true," here, needs clarification, imho. Let's say that the test of the truth of language about ideas - not real things - is whether it works and how well it works. MSs like 2+2=4, because they work perfectly, are here deemed perfectly true, or completely and absolutely true. MSs like "Justice is good," maybe are not perfectly true, or at least not without a lot of work on understanding what is meant by both "justice" and "good."

5) What complicates matters is that descriptive language is always expressed in concepts - ideas. It is easily possible, then, for an MS about reality to have a quality of absolute truth. For example, "That is a table," is true only insofar as the "that " described just is a table. It may not be a table; it may be a table-like thing of some kind. (Keeping in mind that the law of the excluded middle applies only to MSs within language, logic, not descriptive MSs about reality.) So it may not be entirely true that the thing is a table. On the other hand, the idea of "table" is certain, so that if it were ever possible to determine that the thing is entirely a table, then the MS that asserts it is a table would be a descriptive MS that was absolutely and completely true.

And that's it. My goal is a tool to handle beliefs. Beliefs do not have to be true at all to be beliefs. They merely need to be believed. The difficulty - my difficulty - is with people who represent their beliefs as being true, and acting on them as if they were.

I do not think there is anything new or difficult or original here, but I like the idea of limiting "truth" to preserve its strength, by not applying it to ideas or things that are not or cannot be true.

2+2=4 because in the mathematical language we choose, it is so according to that language. It is the structure/narrative/context that says it is so. However it could also be II+II=IV if we are using roman numerals or 5+5=A if we happen to be using hexadecimal numbers. In such systems, things may be true because the system of labels we conceive says that they are true (regardless of whether or not they represent an actual physical thing) or they may be true because they accurately describe an aspect of a physical thing.

However nearly every mental construct we can conceive of either has an arbitrary and/or transitory aspect to it when in reference to a physical thing. Also it can be wrong for a variety of reasons and it is a pretty much a given that some mental constructs are more or less arbitrary/transitory/wrong than others. While there might be some mental construct that are not arbitrary/transitory/ and/or wrong (when they are used in referencing physical things), I don't think I have ever found one; therefore while mental constructs could be considered 'true' or even 'truth' when they are not referencing anything real, at best it is also a given that they are only temporary 'true' when used when referencing real physical things.

Also as a side note, I'm merely using database concepts and models just so I don't have to reinvent the wheel and because databases and database records are more or less modeled after our own mental constructs so conceiving of thought of something as a mere database record is probably better than something built entirely from scratch.