How about “the fact that we’re even talking about an ‘external world’ is kind of ridiculous” as an option?

I can add that I even messaged him privately with some advice only a week or so ago, which he seemed to appreciate. It’s too bad, he was a very affable person. But this decision was cut and dry and I’m glad it’s over with.

Not sure if I said this before, but Phoebe Bridgers is amazing. And I’m in love.

Anyway — Her Tom Petty cover is great — though my wife, who’s a huge Petty fan, wasn't as enamored.

The Godfather had a decent cast…

Best cast overall?

Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.

Or maybe Royal Tenanbaums.

The Firm also had a great cast.

The difference between the real apple and the imaginary apple is that the properties of the real apple really exist: we can see its redness, feel its mass. The properties of the imaginary apple exist only in our mind. — Art48

This is equating “reality” with the empirical. It also seems to assume Descartes’ dualism: the apple as part of the res extensa in the first instance and res cogitans in the second.

Substance is indeed a word— but so what? Determining what it means is interesting. It’s true it goes back to the Greeks and has been an important concept in the history of thought. Substantia was the Latin translation of the Greek word, which was ousia.

Ousia is an interesting topic indeed. You should pursue that, in my view.

If you’re talking about Sam Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett, then I largely agree. Dennett at least has philosophical things to say, but I’ve been gradually less impressed with him over the years. Too scientistic, in my view. Harris has interesting things to say about meditation, which I like— but his political ideas are immature, as demonstrated clearly in 2015 when he discussed the Al Shifa bombing with Noam Chomsky. He was also traumatized by 9/11 and clearly motivated by it in his dealings with Islam. Hitchens too, who became a sad apologist for Bush because of it.

I like all these guys, really. I have far more in common with them than most people I’ve met. But I think the appeal back in ‘06–‘09, when they were seemingly everywhere (recall even South Park spoofed Dawkins), was part of the backlash against Christianity (in the wake of the Catholic sex abuse scandal) and Islam (in the wake of 9/11) and the need to ground oneself in something— in this case, rationality and science.

Goofy guys like Michael Shermer pop up and Carl Sagan (who I still admire) gets made into a high priest to the church of “naturalism.” I began to snap out of all that jazz after discovering much more interesting and relevant thinkers — Chomsky being an easy living example, but also Bert Dreyfus and Richard Wolff and Arendt and Fromm and Orwell and Marx etc etc. In many ways so much deeper, more complex, and more relevant than a thesis that essentially boils down to “religion is faith-based and thus irrational, and therefore bad; science is evidence-based and rational, and (while fluid and imperfect) is good.”

Glad I grew out of that, and glad you have too.

:chin:

The real effect of tax rate reductions is to make the future prospects of profit look more favorable, leading to more current investments that generate more current economic activity and more jobs. — javi2541997

Except this doesn’t happen. We’ve seen the “real effects” of tax cuts over and over again. The latest round in 2017 resulted mostly in stock buybacks. Real wages and investments and job growth — not so much. Predictably.

Sowell. Another market fundamentalist in the Friedman tradition who gives cover for the wealthy to continue their fleecing of the American people. No thanks.

I’ve watched that multiple times. Not only is it great advice for filmmakers, it’s great advice for life. Fantastic.

I like my position more than his right now…

I think the Vegas odds are on my side.

we're actually moving fairly fast with this time control. — Hanover

I meant to pick 3 hours…

If I lose, it will be because of the frustration caused by this cumbersome process. — Hanover

Got it. :up:

If I lose it’ll be because of I’ve died of old age.

I also think we should set up a live tournament with whoever wants to join in. I'm not sure how complicated that would be on Chess.com . — Hanover

Not sure we’d have enough people, but it’d be fun if we did. We could simply set up brackets ourselves if chess.com is too cumbersome.

Yeah but the game reviews are mostly bullshit.

Pawn to g4 wasn’t brilliant but it was definitely excellent, and exactly the kind of move the computer won’t understand.

It’s taken me no more than 2 or 3 minutes to move so far. I guess some people need a lot longer…

:cool:

Yes…bore the opponent to insanity.

Your move buddy…

:yawn:

Does self-interest have to incorporate simply monetary gain? Keeping one's dignity can be in one's self-interest, perhaps. — schopenhauer1

:up: My thoughts too.

Your move buddy…

Have I just become old and cranky, but are especially Hollywood films become worse? — ssu

Yes.

The reason is obvious. Streaming services have largely destroyed the importance of theaters, attention spans are shorter than they were before, and box office receipts have slowly become the only measure of success. Now studios take no risks, and go with franchises— and there’s less studios than before. Disney alone owns nearly everything: Avatar, Star Wars, etc.

Theres much more to watch on TV these days. I go up the theater still to see a handful of directors: Scorseses, PT Anderson, Woody Allen, Wes Anderson, Coen brothers, sometimes Spielberg, sometimes Fincher, handful of others.

I thought of a few more:

The Limey (Soderbergh)

The Insider (Michael Mann)

Both 1999.

Check out Kore-eda Hirokazu if you haven't seen him: Nobody Knows, Still Walking, Shoplifters. — SophistiCat

Indeed I will—appreciated!

We’ll all be DEAD before we finish this game…

And here’s one probably no one has seen which I liked a lot: Coupe De Ville.

Not sure if anyone mentioned Bicycle Thieves. Great movie.

Yeah what’s hilarious is that it isn’t even done for comedic effect. This is how he wants his worshippers to see him: Superman.

That picture. :rofl:

:lol:

Just the damage done to the environment for 4 years under his administration should get the chair.

Yep. The list of Trump’s crimes grows. Will he be prosecuted? Probably not.

Funny to watch the super-objective people who screamed endlessly about Hillary Clinton’s emails suddenly care about “presumption of guilt propaganda.” Lol

Can't love develop from friendship? — RBS

Friendship is the ideal, I think.

Making America Great Again.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/president-trump-staggering-record-of-uncharged-criminal-misconduct/

Pawn to g4.

My best move yet.

:up:



There's no easy way that I see to do so.

@Hanover has dropped off the face of the earth. No move for over a day.

I’ll assume concession. :wink: :chin:

The “opposition parties” you speak of didn’t exist then. Because neither they nor Labour nor the democrats nixed subsidies or bailouts— from Reagan to Thatcher to Blair to Clinton to Bush and Obama.

In Friedman’s free market fantasies, perhaps things could have turned out well — who knows. Pretty much reduce the government to enforcers of contracts and private property laws, perhaps the military. It's never happened, so it's a nice story to tell while the ruling class transfers $50 from the working and middle classes to themselves over 40 years. Same with claims about "socialism" and communism and Marxism, incidentally -- it's a nice story to tell as you implement varying degrees of state capitalist policies, whether in Russia or China or Cuba or Sweden. But what Marx advocated for has never been tried.

Of the two, I opt for what socialism always meant: worker control of enterprise. Democracy through and through, including at work. Pretty simple.

adopt the principles of their enemies — NOS4A2

Again -- what principles? There's rhetoric, sure. Based on real policies, however -- no different than anyone else. But not only did they "steal" the rhetoric, they implemented the neoliberal policies I've referred to. Clinton is a prime example. He didn't just steal the "government is the problem" slogan ("The era of big government is over"), he got NAFTA through and deregulated industries far and wide -- from telecommunications to Wall Street.

So it beggars belief that all roads lead back to someone like Friedman or Hayek or… Pat Buchanan?. — NOS4A2

Yeah, but no one is saying all roads like back to Hayek or Friedman. Their ideas were very useful to the neoliberal assault, and they approved of a great deal of it.

So while it tried to steal the idea of free markets from their opponents, it retained the collectivism and statism, and that’s where we’re at today. — NOS4A2

Oh you mean the "opponents" that run to the state for bailouts and subsidies at every turn? Those statists and socialists?

Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were neoliberals. Obvious from their policies. The rest is your own strange semantic contortions and residual Cold-War era fear of communism, apparently.

The big mistake about the neoliberalism theory is that it puts people like Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Obama, and Biden among its ranks. — NOS4A2

It's not a mistake, it's a fact. We don't have to guess about this, either: just look at the policies. There's a long record of it. The "third way" has always been vague window dressing.

One possible objection you could bring up is that what we live under right now would be more akin to "managerialism" than "neoliberalism." — LancelotFreeman

What do you mean by managerialism? That's also a term used for the period prior to neoliberalism in some quarters. I think I know what you mean though -- it's often called the "9.9%" (rounding off the top 10% but not the .1%). There's plenty of truth in that. But what I'm referring to with "neoliberalism" is a set of policies. Whether it's the managerial elite or capital elite is another story, and one I'd gladly discuss.