I'd prefer that by "democratic", the EU would follow the will of most of its participants when it comes to policy. That's still a long way off. — Manuel

wonder what you mean by "democratic".
It seems you mean something like "being voted into a position of power, as opposed to inheriting it or usurping it". — baker

There's direct democracy and then there's represenative democracy. Just pointing out a useful distinction.

Nonsense isn't like weeds, so that once you pull or dig it out, it would be gone for a least a while. — baker

But in academic setting, test scores and criticism from professors are meant weed out the kinds of people who spout nonsense. (Perhaps not.)

Nonsense is something far more systemic, complex, eluding direct action. — baker

Yes, especially on the internet where anyone can spout nonsense and get away with it.

Many people think in black-and-white terms. They are not interested in understanding things, but in taking sides. So even when they read a (would-be) philosophical text, they do so with an intention of taking sides. If it turns out that they can't do so easily (because they agree with some things in the text, while disagree with others, and some they don't understand), they take this as a cue to oppose the text/the author. — baker

How do you deal with such people?

When we think of philosophy as historically tied to the advisory of sovereignty, though, and have many examples of its abuse, should we not feel a certain gravitas and assume, perhaps not in a way that considers this or that philosopher as all that culpable, a certain degree of responsibility? Ought we not to, as philosophy is to cultivate a way of life in some regards, consider the effect it will have on the world? — thewonder

But there are philosophies right now that negatively affect the world, why not focus on them?. Hindsight is also 20/20, do you think Marx and Nietzsche could have known how their philosophy would affect the world the way they did?

The point of the experiment is to see if there is social risk to any given philosophy. — thewonder

But it's not the philosophers job to worry about that.

Perhaps, but Plato, Nietzsche, and Marx, I think, are evidence of the potential misuse of philosophy. — thewonder

If you misinterpret them, yes.

So you can do this without conceptual clarification? — Banno

What do you mean "do this without conceptual clarification"? That's just a general outline of philosophy, there are many kinds of philosophy, not all of them involve conceptual analysis.

Are you looking for a definition?

The same language has a different feel to it. These are not just issues of translation from French or German. — Banno

Yeah, but it's even more unfamiliar when it comes from a foreign language.

Why... because you say so? Why can't PoeticUniverse write critical poetry? — Banno

Non-poetic creative philosophy. Happy?

Could a gifted Eugenicist suit (any given theory) to support Social Darwinism? If the answer is "yes", then it can not be assumed to work in practice. — thewonder

I dont see this as a good objection to a theory. You can twist a lot of innocent theories to your menovelant means, not just social Darwinism. That's just a testiment to human creativity.

Could a gifted Eugenicist suit (any given theory) to support Social Darwinism?" — thewonder

Free market capitalism?? The eugenics can promote free market idealogy keeping in mind that a lot of people who can't compete (and he will deem them as "unfit") will die off. All done in support of Social Darwinism.

I'm allowed to be critical. Whatever. :sad:

He could test eugenics on animals? Get rid of the "bad" fish in an aquarium.

So physics and biology answer Mary's room. Brilliant. :party:

Create a computer simulation to show what happens to society if you employ eugenics.

Physics? :chin: — TheMadFool

What about biology? How does my brain perceive red?

That's poetry.

Wrong forum. — Banno

It's not poetry if you include critical reasoning.

The perception of red is merely the eye translating 750 (nm) for the brain — TheMadFool

How do you know? I don't trust the YouTube video.

Fair point but that's not actually a reason is it? — TheMadFool

A reason for what?

Explain why? — TheMadFool

If it were that simple we wouldn't be spending so much money researching consciousness. The reality is, we don't really know what perceiving "red" means. Not yet, at least.

The perception of red is merely the eye translating 750 (nm) for the brain. — TheMadFool

Hmm.. I bet that's controversial and an oversimplification.

The idea is to ask whether a highly intelligent person could suit a theory to some nefarious purpose or another. — thewonder

Yeah, computer simulation.

Why do you ask? — TheMadFool

Because it seems like describing red scientifically is different than perceiving red. The word "learning" is thrown into the conversation, and I think it's entirely unnecessary. :chin:

It's the eye's, child's or adult's, way of translating 750 (nm) for the brain. — TheMadFool

red is 750 (nm — TheMadFool

Are these two statements equivalent?

How do we know red is 750 (nm)? Isn't that a bridge we've already crossed? — TheMadFool

A child knows what red is.

What is red? It's the eye's way of perceiving 750 (nm). — TheMadFool

Can your prove that?

gifted Eugenicist — thewonder

What is a gifted Eugenicist?

Does Mary learn anything new when she actually sees red? — TheMadFool

Not in the same sense that we learn math. To say Mary learns anything we first need to broaden our concept of learning.

Outside of the full breath of their reason, however, people seem to think that it has something to do with modern medicine, feminism, or the right-to-die. — thewonder

I didn't know that.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Eugenics was a movement by scientists and government to create a "perfect society" by controlling the supposed "genetic quality" of people in their country. In America and in Nazi Germany, there were forced sterilizations for anyone who believed to carry "bad genes" (such as cripples and mentally disabled). Eugenics long since been seen as pseudo-science among the scientific community. I find it horrifying that people still think it's viable.

What I am advocating is called argument. When someone says something, if it doesn't make sense you can ask for clarification. Been that way since at least Socrates.

It's What We Do.

Supposing otherwise undermines the process in which we are engaged.

So yeah, my way is the right way. But it's not just me who says it is the right way. — Banno

I'll say this: Your way of describing philosophy can be very useful for communication on the Philosophy Forum, but there's no god-like figure that can decree that this way is the correct way of doing philosophy.

But the alternative strikes me as far worse; allowing nonsense to propagate. — Banno

Have you successfully stopped nonsense from propagating? If so, my hat is off to you.

It's also easy to dismiss failure to write clearly as a failure on the part of the reader. — Banno

That's true. :lol:

Then get a better translator. The request for clarification remains cogent. — Banno

Different languages have a different feel to it. Even if you get a good translation, you can still misunderstand the author.

there is no one way to read any text. — Banno

I'm against this proposition. Suppose the author of a text intended you to understand it a particular way. I like to read something the way it was intended to be read.

So what it comes down to is, if you think philosophy is not about conceptual clarification, then it is up to you to present an account of philosophy that does involve conceptual clarification. — Banno

It has already been done! I like the Britannica article on philosophy Link. Analytic philosophy (which you seem to be advocating) is merely a modern construct.

Well, your way leads exactly nowhere. You've got neither clarification nor obfuscation. — Banno

I like to leave philosophy open and creative. Having predispositions on the proper way to do philosophy, such as demanding clarity all the time, is very constraining.

It's your way or the highway. I see.

So you want philosophy that makes no difference. — Banno

My desires about philosophy isn't relevant.

Then you are saying that philosophy should neither seek to clarify nor make more obscure. — Banno

I am not saying that either. All I said not everyone agrees that philosophy is about clarifying concepts. How philosophy should be done is a different matter.

Is your argument that one of the aims of philosophy should be to make arguments more obscure? — Banno

No. It is your belief that philosophy is about clarifying concepts, not mine.

Yeah, but those who do not are wrong. — Banno

How? Because you say so?

If philosophy is not about conceptual clarification, then it is nothing. — Banno

Not everyone agrees with that.