If the gods are kind, this thread will be as well.

(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

Very clearly a joke, yes.

What is being said when it's claimed women have the right not to be subjugated? If we say that means they have the right to vote, we refer to a legal right. We don't refer to an "inherent right to vote "

One of the problems when we speak of "human rights" is one of lack of context or definition. When we try to define them, the definition which results is either so nebulous as to be useless or is dependent on legal rights. The example I give above applies context. If we say they have the right not to be treated as property we're not saying they have the right not to be property; we're saying that they're not property. In other words, as to women men do not have or should not have the legal rights they may exercise or have to property.

I must not have made myself clear. It makes no sense to me to speak of human rights or any rights outside of legal rights.

It seems to me that using the language of "rights" outside of the law constitutes a form of wishful thinking.

A "right" which isn't a legal right (i.e. enforceable and subject to protection under the law, the violation of which is compensable) is nothing more than something which it's maintained should be a legal right, or should be considered as a legal right although it isn't one (which I think makes no sense).

So, I think the appropriate question to ask, if one wants to do so, is: Should what's being considered be legal rights?

My point is these are not uniquely philosophical questions. They're not questions that philosophers, in particular, face "enormous pressure" not to ask.

None of these resemble the questions referred to in the OP. They are, instead, questions which may be asked by most anyone most anywhere, e.g. at a Thanksgiving dinner.

The ancient Stoics were stubborn materialists, but believed in a rarefied form of material, generally called pneuma, which was the generative force of the cosmos. Pneuma was a part of all things, organic and inorganic, but had different grades, one of which formed the rational mind/soul of human beings.

Perhaps they were pantheists or panpsychists--I don't particularly care which. I find the general idea of such a cosmos attractive. But I agree that if there is something similar to pneuma it will be established through science, not philosophy.

I confess I wonder just what questions philosophers have asked despite "enormous pressure" not to do so. Of those mentioned in the OP, the only one I think has, and may still, generate serious opposition or controversy is "What is God?" Some (like me) may think that question isn't or shouldn't be of any concern to philosophers, but outside of wishing it not be asked or discussed and perhaps sighing when it is in my presence, I can't recall enormous pressure being applied to prevent it from being asked.

Efforts made to prove that God does or does not exist seem to anger some and provoke bitter responses, it's true, but the unfortunate prevalence of such efforts establishes that any pressure to suppress them has been ineffective.

There is the example of Socrates of course, and whenever and wherever the Abrahamic religions or others similarly intolerant and exclusive hold sway there's very serious pressure applied to repress the question IF it raises other questions related to whether the God favored by the powerful really is God.

I think that the questions mentioned in the OP are so abstract that the claim there is "enormous pressure" not to ask them isn't credible. They lack context--like so much else in philosophy. Imagine enormous pressure being applied to prevent consideration of what it means to know something, or what it means to exist. So I ask for examples of these dangerous questions it's the purpose of philosophy to ask and address.

"Thinking in the face of pressure not to" sounds rather like Hemingway ("grace under pressure"). The philosopher as matador, perhaps, fighting an unusually ponderous bull fed on platitudes? Or out hunting the dreaded guardians of the common herd of humanity? Perhaps philosophers in that case would be taking themselves too seriously.

Never stop questioning? Maybe have a reason to question, first.

Yes, I've heard about this sort of thing.

In fairness I should note that I find it difficult to attribute any significance to questions regarding Being. So, naturally enough, Nothing means nothing to me.

My reference was merely to the fact that the obscurity of H's work has prompted his admirers to, seemingly, compete with each other in providing explanations of it.

It's really quite good at describing and summarizing these opposing positions. The lawyer in me admires this. I think it will be very useful in preparing and responding to legal arguments. I've chatted with it about it's application in the practice of law.

Ugh. It seems that AI can successfully parrot
the explanations of Heildegger's many apologists. I'm with Carnap in this, of course, but am willing to acknowledge that the phrase may be an inept stab at poetry of a sort, which I think is what Carnap suggested as well.

That said, I think it's a good response.

Well, it's output seems generally well written, though not scintillating. And, what's written speaks for itself. I think it should be identified when used but otherwise am unconcerned. I long to see its comment on such gems as "Nothing nothings."

I merely emulate Wittgenstein, who rightly noted that a serious and good work of philosophy could be (and I would add has been) written consisting entirely of jokes.

I was under the impression that intelligence of ANY kind had already been banned on this site.

Your confusion is understandable. Incontinence will result in voiding, and so causes the void. But the void isn't itself incontinent.

If the Constitution is changed, or abolished, it will have no more to do with whether it's "legitimate" than when it was created. Systems of law exist regardless of morality or principles. Laws apply whether they're good or bad.

Perhaps. But one should ask oneself, sometimes at least, what is achieved. Even if we merely play games, then at least there's a winner and loser.

I wonder if our fascination with questions that don't matter has ever been given serious study. But now I think of it, that may not matter either.

It may be that I don't understand what you mean by "external world." If you mean by it the world we're part of, I don't know why you call it "external." External to what?

I certainly don't think we can't know the people and things we interact with every moment of our lives. What reason is there to think I don't?
Judging from our own conduct and how we live our lives, none of us actually doubt their existence or believe we don't know them. Claiming we nonetheless can doubt their existence or can't really know them is insist on a difference which clearly makes no difference.

[quote/Outlander]Just because someone convinces themself, or perhaps an entire society or even the whole world a given something is true and that a given something else is false, doesn't mean what they have convinced themself or others of is actually true or false."[/quote]
-- Outlander

I'm not sure what distinction you're making between true and false and actually true and actually false. More generally speaking, I'm sorry but I don't understand your point.

Finding the way out of the fly bottle means there is no "external" world-- there is no world separate from us, in other words. We're not observers of the rest of the world; we participate in it interact with its other constituents every moment of our lives.

So, being free of the fly bottle doesn't mean one accepts the existence of world "external" to us. One accepts, instead, that there's a world and that we're a part of it.

I don't understand. If someone finds they've been trapped in a fly bottle of their own making, they're free of it. Their metaphorical eyes have been opened (the fly bottle is of course only a metaphor as well). They're to be congratulated, not denigrated.

Only if you're still buzzing around in the fly bottle. Once out, you may dare to think about, e g., your interaction with the rest of the world as an organism in an environment of which you're a part, and with others. But for those who like being in the bottle they've built, they may continue to indulge themselves.

I'm not sure what nation has laws making employment discrimination a criminal offense. Please let me know which does. Nor do I know of any jurisdiction in the U.S. that provides it's employment discrimination to hold an opinion. Making employment decisions because someone belongs.to a particular race or sex is different from merely holding an opinion, though.

My preferred interpretation of W's statement is that the fly bottle is something the fly has contrived and by which it mistakenly thinks of itself as apart from the rest of the world instead of a part of the world. So, showing it the way out would include correcting misconceptions, e.g. the belief in an "external world" which can't truly be known, mind/body and other dualisms. The fly bottle is self-imposed.

There's no place like home, it's said.

I like what Wittgenstein said about the purpose of philosophy: "To show the fly the way out of the fly bottle."

Criminalizing the verbal/written expression of hate IN ITSELF is too much like criminalizing thought or feelings, for me. I'd rather avoid implementing thoughtcrime.

Now and then, I take comfort in in the fact that the law (at least here in God's Favorite Country) has not (yet?) made the use of "hate speech" a crime. But perhaps because we're sadly and self-righteously inclined to equate the law with morality, there are laws which penalize hate of a social group when it motivates commission of a crime. The combination of this kind of hate with an already defined crime results in something described, ingeniously, as a "hate crime."

Certainly it exists. It's over there, next to somethingness.

My understanding is, very simply put, objectivity in ethics is the view that moral claims aren't merely personal beliefs and opinions, but their value and validity may be determined regardless of personal preferences. For a more sophisticated and complete discussion see 180 Proof's post or do some research.

Just thought I'd note that the definitions you're referring to are those used in epistemology and metaphysics. You might find those applied to ethics are a trifle different.

Subjectivity in ethics, as I understand it, treats moral assertions as expressions of opinion; nothing more.

Well, feel free to send me messages without using words, then, or incoherently and without explanation, so I'll understand. I'm waiting. I'll let you know when I receive them.

If only objectivity (the state of being objective) was dominant! Then there would be less bias, prejudice, favoritism, etc. in the world. That would make ME happy. Would it make you sad?

One of the things I like about analytic philosophy and OLP, by the way, is their emphasis on care in defining terms and using language.

As you know from reading Pierre Hadot, there were ancient schools of philosophy that taught ways of living that promoted what they considered happiness. They were founded on reason, though, following from in the case of the Stoics compliance with the Universal Reason they thought was the generative force of the Universe.

I think philosophers should have the courage to admit that they aren't poets or artists, and the wisdom to acknowledge that what poetry and art do is much better done by poets and artists than by philosophers.

Assuming you "became a human" in the normal way, then the chances that you wouldn't be a human are "vanishing small."

Why not just say that, based on the evidence we have, humans are rare?

Why do you think that you, a human, could have become something else? Do you think that you existed before you became a human, and that the Universe or someone or something made you a human instead of, e.g, a bunny?