Also those are dolphins not porpoises. — Pfhorrest

Dolphins they may be, but they're known as the porpoises of art and philosophy; porpoises, that is to say, for those purposes.

https://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/JCpds_4RJblvcFa0C_qerCvZgLk=/3836x2158/smart/filters:no_upscale()/bottlenose-dolphin-tursiops-truncatus-paints-with-paintbrush-while-dolphin-trainer-holds-the-artwork-dolphin-reef-eilat-israel-red-sea-128123072-57570a995f9b5892e8e46ae0.jpg

He's the one behind the porpoise of art. Oh wait, you said purpose. Never mind.

Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.

The Prosecutor's 'theory of the case' which secured only a single indictment for charges of "wanton endangerment" will be shown to have been justified or not justified shortly. Someone tell me what I'm missing. — 180 Proof

I don't like the use of grand juries. I hope a complete record is produced (I don't know the details of the Judge's decision). If it doesn't make clear whether the result of the proceeding was just, I hope it will at least serve to demonstrate the flawed and potentially perverse (a sort of prosecutorial perversion of the course of justice) nature of this tool available to the state.

Cars have models - there can be thousands upon thousands of cars of a particular model. — TheMadFool

Leibniz recommends the new BMW Monad, especially the Ultimate Monad, its most luxurious, but fundamentally simple, trim. It has a navigation system by which you can tell the location of all other Monads.

I almost listed him... but went instead for his former lover, finding her more readable, more interesting and more palatable — Banno

His political engagements were with other Jews, and of another kind entirely, of course. Though I suppose he could be said to have screwed them as well.

Ah well. But you can't be accused of dissembling, that's for certain.

I haven't read any of her opinions, but I doubt she's written more than a few for a majority of the court in the three years she's been a judge. I'd guess she's written more dissents, though, or joined in them. People of Praise, forsooth.

Er, yes. Quite literally fuck the law and all involved in upholding it if it leads to bad outcomes. — StreetlightX

As Trump (and others) might say, I suspect. But perhaps you're being ironic. If not, there's nothing like honesty.

I really don't know, I'm afraid. Many of us (lawyers) have a tendency to practice too long, I think. I saw someone who was an outstanding trial lawyer in his prime make a fool of himself in court when in his 80s, to the dismay of his admirers. Many larger firms put great pressure on older lawyers to retire, fearing malpractice claims. I may die with my boots on, but don't intend to practice after the next few years, just to avoid humiliation (I regularly commit the sin of pride--pridefully, I might add--and so prefer to be remembered as competent).

She may have thought she had more to contribute, and wanted to do so while she could.

I argued a case before the 7th Circuit a few years ago. Them Judges ain't so smart.

I never kid myself, particularly not about the sad politics of our Glorious Union.

Well, there are some other things that impact actual people as well, you see, and she'll be on there for them as well.

She's apparently had remarkably little judicial experience (all of it in appeals court), and practiced law for a scant three years. She's an academic who spent sometime clerking before being appointed to the 7th Circuit in 2017. I prefer that Supreme Court Justices have more experience of how the law actually works, and it's impact on actual people.

One shot by the man in the apartment, thirty shots by the police is what I've heard.

I don't know Davidson. I was thinking more of Wittgenstein, Austin, Ryle and others.

There's a value in showing the fly the way out of the bottle, and freeing ourselves from the bewitchment of language, to paraphrase Wittgenstein.

Perhaps its most significant function.

Analytic philosophy, as I understand it, is a tonic, a roborant. It's a cure for what ails philosophy to the extent philosophy is assailed by the grotesqueries and mummeries of certain practitioners, which arise from the misuse of language, the appeal to the mystical, reification, dualism, Romanticism, jargon and other blights. It may restore clarity and vigor to critical thought, and ferret out appeals to the occult (meaning hidden or concealed) as explanation. Good training for analytical thinking of the kind employed by the finest lawyers too. That's social value enough for me.

Maybe Ciceronianus the White will take a moment to opine here, given his long legal experience, and clear up any confusions on this matter. — 180 Proof

Happily, I've never been involved in criminal law proceedings.

But it's my understanding that grand juries know only what they've come to know through the direction of prosecutors. Also, as Hanover notes, there's a substantial difference between the burden of proof in civil and criminal actions. I know of nothing which prohibits the introduction in a criminal case of evidence submitted in a civil case, though for all I know the rules on admissibility of evidence may differ in criminal court. I know of nothing which would make findings of fact by a civil jury binding on a jury in another case, civil or criminal.

I prefer a funerary commemoration.

DIS MANIBUS SACRUM
Hic Iacet
Ciceronianus the lawyer
A mindful father
A dutiful husband
A helpful son and sibling
A faithful friend
An annoying enemy
An impatient man who required patience
He loved cats, books, chess, shooting clay pigeons
Intoxicating liquors, fine food and wine
Classical music, cool jazz, be-bop and Warren Zevon
Photorealism, modernist poetry and history
He loved wit even more than he loved himself
And loved himself too much
He did not do all he should have done
He was not all he should have been
His time is over. Use yours well.

Will Trump get this additional appointment? If so, is Roe v Wade doomed? If Dems win the White House and Senate, will they (and SHOULD they?) pack the court? — Relativist

Yes. Probably. They will if they get the chance. They should not.

They should not, because ideally the selection and approval process shouldn't be so politicized. It is, however, and as Disraeli noted there is no honor in politics, and there is no act of treachery or meanness of which a political party is not capable, so pack it they will if they can.

Fortunately, Judges of the higher courts if they're not themselves able have staff lawyers who are capable of preparing opinions which, at least on their face, have some degree of legal basis. However, I think it's inevitable that as to issues of political significance, our Supreme Court Justices will to the extent possible and possibly even beyond what is reasonable conform to the ideology they accept.

No, but now I'm interested. — Gus Lamarch

I recommend it highly. He seems to have done a great deal of research, and wrote well. Of course, it's also a fascinating subject.

I don't know if you agree, but for me, this period of religious diversification that was in its full swing in the 3rd century is identical to our current period. — Gus Lamarch

I live in the U.S., and am largely ignorant of religion in other countries. I see no diversification here for the most part; mostly dull forms of Protestantism (when not fundamentalist, in which case it's incredible and somewhat disturbing) and an uninspired form of Catholicism.

Years later, studying the Christian faith, I ended up discovering that my past Christian belief was nothing more than the Arian interpretation of Arianism - a Christian heresy from the 3rd and 4th centuries, and which was widely adopted by the Germanic barbarians who invaded the Roman Empire - later, all of them would convert to Catholicism in the most diverse ways - -. — Gus Lamarch

Emperors were Arian as well. For example Contantius, the predecessor and cousin of Julian the Apostate (those were interesting times). Have you ever read Gore Vidal's Julian? One of my favorite historical novels.

I've always thought the Arian view of Jesus is more acceptable, more reasonable (if that can be said of a religious belief), than the Nicene view, though I dutifully recited the Credo in Latin and English for many years.

This is a subject that fascinates me too much. Christianity completely deconstructed the classic mentality of the people of the time - from ethics, values, morals, virtues, stereotypes, prejudices, taboos, fetishes, dress, language, etc ... - It was like a complete deconstruction of the structuring of the human mind of the time - of course, over the years and not in a single moment -. — Gus Lamarch

I agree there was a reconstruction if not deconstruction in several ways. I think it a great loss, myself.

Whether its a case of Christian "conditioning" or not, there is much about pagan worship that strikes us as bizarre and inexplicable. You mentioned the lion headed figure found in Mithraeums. How may someone raised in a Christian society think of it as anything but demonic? How can we understand animal sacrifice, or the significance of the bull not only in the Mithras cult but the worship of the Great Mother, and earlier in the worship of Dionysus and in Minoan and Egyptian religions? The significance of sacrifice and salvation are there in Christianity as well, of course, but on its face is so different. Nonetheless, it would seem the same needs and desires are being addressed.

Early Christianity had its own sects or heresies which would strike us now as bizarre as well. The Gnostics most especially I think. Gnosticism may have been influenced by Hermes Trismegistus and pagan cults emphasizing secret knowledge as necessary for salvation. And certainly Christian beliefs can be bizarre themselves; the Christian rituals as well. But not as bizarre--to us, in any case.

One of the issues that most concerned medieval European monarchs was the concept of legitimacy. It was an unremitting struggle to decide who could really be considered the "successor" of the Roman Empire - therefore, of all the civilization they had until then inherited -, and for that very reason that European states were so unstable and techno-culturally backward - during the Early Middle Ages -. It was an eternal discussion of do-nothing-kings about who could be considered the heir to the throne of Rome, one who was already of iron and rust. — Gus Lamarch

Yes. It must have been galling for them to consider themselves compared to what had been, ruling over provinces or parts of provinces of an Empire which fell. And Latin of course survived and was considered the language of the educated and the elite, not to mention that of the ubiquitous Church. Rome's shadow covered them all. Then, from the 13th century on, they were compelled to marvel at the knowledge and wisdom of the ancients revealed to them from the "rediscovery" of Greek and Roman thinkers, thanks in no small part to the Arabs. Very galling.

When one thinks that we only began to rival Rome in such things as plumbing and hygiene in the 19th century, it's a bit humbling.

In the end, the thought that may arise in the mind is that we did not develop anything, nor did we build anything, we just destroyed a great civilization that was the world, and now we try to reconstruct it through the little pieces that remain... — Gus Lamarch

Interesting. But I think we can claim to have surpassed the ancients in some ways, at least, since the development of the sciences. Technologically, certainly. But those achievements are secular.

My main question would be about what makes a concept of state legitimate so that it has influence over territories that it does not control, and which moral arguments could claim this legitimacy. And last but not least: - What was, or rather, what is the Roman Empire? — Gus Lamarch

I doubt we of the West will ever get over the Roman Empire. We've always looked back to it, and I think we always will. Perhaps if Alexander had lived longer, or his successors weren't so intent on fighting each other, that potential fusion of disparate nations, peoples, cultures and beliefs would have dominated West and East. As it is, Hellenistic culture was influential throughout the Mediterranean Sea and beyond.

Rome succeeded where Alexander and his successors failed. It conquered the lands assumed by his generals and more (to the West), but more importantly it lasted, for centuries in the West and more centuries in the East. The Eastern Empire was Greek in language and culture, but Roman in law, administration and militarily (the language of law remained Latin). It called itself Roman long after what is traditionally considered the fall of the Western Empire. So, for that matter, did the barbarian nations which took its place in the West, through Charlemagne to the rather absurdly named Holy Roman Empire. It survives still, in a sense, as a kind of ghost in the form of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Later empires, Spanish, French and British, imitated it; the British who ran their empire were raised on it. Even the short-lived empire of Napoleon, and Napoleon III, was influenced by it. Napoleon deserved the to be called "Emperor" (a military title, after all) more than most emperors of Rome.

Its success and lasting influence can be attributed to several things. Roads, an unmatched military for many years, tolerance for most beliefs, religions and cultures provided its imperium was acknowledged and respected and taxes paid, its law and administration, the prosperity which accompanied the Pax Romana, and finally, perhaps, and ultimately, its governments' association with and imposition of an exclusive, aggressive and intolerant religion and the ruthless suppression of all others.

Well, that certainly sums up the past few thousand years of the West (I joke).

Rome is still around, in a way. But I don't think the influence of a state beyond its borders is a question of legitimacy. Legitimacy maybe denied or disputed. Maybe the Latin word imperium best describes what creates it. Authority, or perceived authority, in the creation and imposition of standards governing various aspects of our lives.

What do you think about it? — Gus Lamarch

It's hard to say anything about it because its initiates apparently kept its secrets so well. Unless more is discovered, we're limited to the archaeological evidence and what Porphyry and a few of the Church Fathers say about.

The tauroctony and other imagery, largely astrological, are certainly interesting, as are the seven grades of initiation and the fact that the ritual involved a communal meal. I know it was once thought that Mithraism would have triumphed if Christianity didn't, but I don't think that's likely as its initiates were exclusively male. Still, the cult was apparently very popular, especially among the legions if the location of the Mithraeums are any indication.

Mithras, Helios and Luna are depicted in the imagery. Possibly Sol Invictus also. These depictions and astrological symbols indicate a variant of sun worship; maybe combined with Orphism ("I am a child of the earth and the starry heavens" was an Orphic inscription found on a funerary monument, I recall reading).

The triumph of Christianity was so extensive I don't know if we can ever know what or how initiates of Mithras, or Isis, or Cybele or participants in other mysteries like those of Eleusis believed and felt., except perhaps by inference from what we know of early Christianity's assimilation of them. I wish we could.

It seems to me Plotinus is merely trying to satisfy a perceived need by positing the existence of something, blessedly featureless and indistinct and therefore requiring no explanation, that would satisfy it.

I seem to be an extreme defender of Christianity, but in reality we live in a time where it has become the rule to defame your own past, and I wont allow it. — Gus Lamarch

Thanks for the clarification.

As I recall, Constantine himself was a fan of Sol Invictus--for a time and as convenient. A canny fellow, Constantine, but not one of my favorites among the emperors.

Not to spend too much time on religion, but the transition from traditional paganism to Christianity in the Empire is something I find fascinating. I wish we knew more about the so-called mystery religions, especially the cult of Mithras regarding which we know very little.

Do you talk about whether religious arguments become obsolete over time? If so, no doubt.

This happened with the pantheistic religion of the ancient roman civilization. Over the centuries, and with the absence of any proof that the Gods - or in the case of monotheism, God - exists, civilization begins to doubt the figure of worship, and eventually, the arguments that support its religion. It is not by chance that the roman pantheon raised and brought down several Gods of the title of the highest deity - Jupiter, Heliogabalus, Sol Invictus, etc ... -. One of the weaknesses of any religion - it seems to me - is that it is partly founded on the belief that metaphysical events can - and should - manifest in the real world, which does not happen. — Gus Lamarch

As far as I'm aware, Heliogabalus was another name for Elagabalus, one of the more curious Roman emperors. Though the cult of the emperors was widespread, and some of the madder emperors may have considered themselves the highest deity, I don't think Heliogabalus or any emperor was considered such by "ancient roman civilization."

You seem to insist that Christianity is the basis for all that is best in Western Civilization, while acknowledging its problems in (I think) a rather dismissive fashion. You also seem hesitant to acknowledge the great debt Christianity owes to ancient pagan thought and civilization (being largely based on it and having incorporated it) and their influence on the West. I may be wrong, though.

Dulce est desipere in loco.

Rome conquered them first — Gregory

Rome certainly conquered Judea. Pompey first sacked Jerusalem, and then effectively ruled it for some time through its client kings, the Herods. Then it became a Roman province. The Jewish nation was for the most part tolerated indirect Roman rule, and Rome for the most part tolerated the Jews and the Jewish nation, accepting them as peculiar but respecting their religion because it was ancient. After Judea became a province, though, the Jews became subject to Roman taxation and direct Roman rule, which were resented. This resulted in revolt, ending in the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE by the legions under Vespasian and then his son Titus, both of whom became Emperors. Roman soldiers may be seen carrying loot from the temple in Titus' triumph on one of the reliefs on his Arch in the Forum.

The Jews revolted a second time, only to be crushed by the legions of Hadrian after three years (132-135 CE). Hadrian renamed Jerusalem Aleia Capitolina.

At the time of the second revolt against Rome, Christianity's influence was growing but it was already distinguished from Judaism as it had been since Paul's time. Paul's Christianity varied from that of Jesus' brother James, and both had their followers.

Christianity never conquered Rome, nor did the Jews. Christianity assimilated Rome. It became Rome, but not by conquest.

Well, one does what one can.

Since we still have in God we Trust on our currency; value Christian philosophy, freedom to express other Religious belief systems, so on and so forth, I would think the atheist should basically, pardon the phrase, feel outnumbered and pack up and get out, and go where there's more of a comfort level. — 3017amen

Still? That slogan first started appearing on mammon here in the 1950's, as did the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Somehow, our Great Republic managed to survive without it until then. Perhaps, though, there weren't as many Christians around before the Eisenhower administration as after it.

Given what Jesus is said to have said about money and wealth, one would think the use of the slogan on currency would be more suggestive of a lack of Christians than an abundance of them.

But I tend to agree that Christianity here, where fundamentalism thrives, is a more virulent form of that religion than elsewhere, even in primarily Catholic countries where that older, wiser and perhaps more weary form of it is prevalent; and that its disregard of virtually any appeal to thought will likely insure it lives on for quite some time.

I don't know if the OP is directed at debates regarding God, which I think futile but arguably a part of philosophy. It seems directed at discussion of the doctrines of particular religions. I personally think that philosophy of religion, if it considers the place and meaning of ritual and doctrine in what is called religion, might include consideration of those doctrines--but not of course preaching them.

2. Intense belief must be backed by equally sufficient evidence. — Josh Vasquez

I intensely believe you're wrong. Therefore, there must be equally sufficient evidence that you are wrong. Q.E.D.

Well, Luther wasn't a Nazi. That's more than you can say about Heildegger, sorry Heidegger.

"Things merely are" to quote Simon Critchely about Wallace Stevens. Constituents of the universe may have purposes, which will vary with circumstances.

The technology discourages thought. The expression of anything which comes to mind is permitted and instantaneous, and even encouraged, especially in reaction. It promotes emotional responses and declarations of unexplained and perhaps unexplainable opinions.

Changing this would require discipline, though, and discipline is something which we lack, and is also discouraged.

It's one of those events that make me wish time-travel was possible. I'd be a fascinated onlooker.

For this reason, I think, traditional religion is doomed unless unless it reinterprets or reinvents itself in a more figurative or mystical or mythical sense.
Myths have meanings, stories have lessons even if they are not literal true or historically accurate.
One can look at falling church membership and attendance particularly in the Western World as evidence that the Church is becoming less relevant in the modern age. — prothero

Except perhaps here in God's Favorite Country. There are those among us who seem to relish the "old time religion" and glory in its defiance not only of science but common sense. They whimsically think that humans cavorted with dinosaurs; are healed by TV evangelists, attend mega-churches, build creation museums. In many respects thing haven't changed here since the Scopes trial.

What makes you think that? (The Athenian exposure bit) — DingoJones

It's a guess, really, but I think an educated guess.

We have only Christian sources for this (the Acts of the Apostles if I recall correctly), but Paul visited Athens and is said to have been horrified by the various temples and statues of pagan divinities. So of course, he began preaching. To everyone he could, naturally, but among them eventually were some philosophers characterized as being Epicureans and Stoics. The Epicureans supposedly thought he was a "babbler" and were dismissive. The Stoics supposedly were interested in what he had to say, but their interest was limited and narrow, they thought he was advocating new gods of some exotic kind, and they were unpersuaded.

So it seems Paul's efforts to persuade/convert the philosophers were all for nought. I think his denuncian of wisdom and intelligence--something I find rather odd, myself, being a fan of both--may have been motivated by his failure. He may have found that the philosophers interrupted his preaching with annoying questions, and resented the interruptions (and the questions). Just a guess.

It wasn't the sole instance of early Christians being irritated by philosophy. Tertullian asked "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" Very little it turns out. Of course, Christians began to assimilate philosophy themselves, especially during the long repression and persecution of pagans by the Christian emperors, which was fairly systematic commencing with the reign of Theodosius. The schools of Athens were closed by decree of Justinian.