Yes. In addition to Biden and his family, Hillary Clinton is brought up. But selective prosecution is hard to establish, and in this case given the circumstances and the stupidly incriminating statements of the man himself and his conduct during the investigation, I don't know how any competent, self-respecting lawyer could refrain from prosecuting given the grand jury's direction.

That is why we have the law and courts. At the end of the day, if the courts conclude guilt, the opinion of the public does not matter. America in general might complain about rulings, but we abide by them. Trump will go to jail, many people will insist they don't believe it, but he will suffer the consequences under the law if found guilty. The court of opinion is always a biased rabble of logically inconsistent feelings and emotions struggling for power. Its irrelevant in the face of a country that solidly favors and enforces the law. — Philosophim

Well, I hope you're right. But I think we face a situation where a significant portion of the populace doesn't favor the law, and believes it shouldn't be enforced, in this case as to this individual. That anyone could accept him as credible or honorable mystifies me; he seems a kind of paragon of brazen deceit and selfishness. But there are those who do.

I think representing Trump would be a nightmare for a lawyer. He has no discipline, is scatter-brained, tends not to take advice, and has a reputation for stiffing his lawyers. I hope those representing him now will demand a very large retainer, and do nothing until they know the money is in the bank.

Yes, again. — T Clark

You are our resident censor, our Cato (the Elder), our Anthony Comstock. Te saluto!

Again?
— Ciceronianus

Again? — T Clark

Again?

Again?

As William James says, "The ultimate test for us of what a truth means is the conduct it dictates or inspires."

This I would apply to the moral more than the mundane. I realize a bridge can be built only a certain way.

So even should a belief in God be entirely delusional, if it should lead to greater happiness, and should its disbelief lead to misery, you'd be hard pressed to explain why we should accept the cold hard scientific misery unless you hold that adherence to empirically motivated beliefs is always righteous. Such would be a basic tenant of your dogma. — Hanover

Note that James refers to "what a truth means..." That isn't a statement regarding how we determine what is or is not true. It sounds to me like a Jamesian effort to express Peirce's Pragmatic Maxim (how to determine what we mean by a concept or idea).

So, what a belief in God or what a particular belief in God means may be determined by "the conduct it dictates or inspires" (regardless of its truth).

It's not clear to me that "happiness" is a kind of conduct; nor is it clear to me that we can ascribe any particular kind of conduct as being dictated or inspired by a general, undefined "belief in God." So, I doubt that James' statement can be of much use to you in the point I think you're trying to make.

If we add a bit of context, and explanation, we may be able to determine the type of conduct a belief in God dictates or inspires. A belief that "X is the one, true God" for example might result in conduct of a certain kind.

Regardless, though, if your point is that what makes us happy should be preferred to what makes us miserable, the truth or meaning of that claim would also seem to call for some context in order for it to be determined.

The more context is significant in making a judgment, the less it is a matter of dogma, I think.

While it's strikingly easy to believe that the personal gods many worship are out to get one or the other of us, it isn't nearly as easy to believe that of the universe. The universe is enormous, and it's exceedingly unlikely that, if it is aware of us and has the capacity to form intent, it has any concern with what we think, say or do. That being the case, it makes no sense to think that it bears us any ill will, or that the kind of person we are disturbs it in any way.

. It is my contention that though the great and the good might agree amongst themselves a definitive canon and ritual and so on, and enforce that upon the great unwashed, a religion founded on inerrancy and literalism cannot become a popular religion until the masses can read the text in a language they can understand. — unenlightened

OK. And "the masses" probably didn't read until the 19th-20th centuries. I see your point.

I would prefer to believe that Christ was speaking from a universalist perspective, rather than proclaiming the requirements of a sectarian religious affiliation ("Yo! Christians! Form a queue to the right! Others - outer darkness!'). — Wayfarer

Well, I'd prefer to believe he never said such things. But we know what the Gospel says he said. Either he said it, or he didn't. In the latter case, the author(s) of the Gospel thinks he said it or would like us to believe he did. In either case, I think, there's no ambiguity in what's said.

Maybe you have this mixed up though. Jesus was anti-religion. He rebelled against the Jews. You must recognize that there was no Christianity at that time, so he was not promoting a religion called Christianity, he was simply rebelling against religion. So when, if, he said "I am the truth", then it was in an anti-religious context. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know that he was anti-religion. Perhaps he was. All we have to judge him by are writings made decades after his death. As to those, they were written at a time Christianity was developing. John's Gospel was the last to be written, by my understanding--at least the last of the four Gospels which have been accepted (though it's possible this particular excerpt was made later; Christians were known to edit writings to suit their purposes, as they did to those of Flavius Josephus, or indeed fabricate them, as in the case of the supposed correspondence between Seneca and St. Paul).

In John's Gospel we see the seeds of what Christianity the religion was becoming and became. More sophisticated by the rather clumsy insertion of the ancient pagan concept of Logos into Christian discourse (this was followed by the wholesale assimilation of the works of pagan philosophers, most notably Plato and the Neo-Platonists, Aristotle and the Stoics). More exclusive in its claims to be the one true faith.

The most difficult thing about understanding the New Testament is to discern what Jesus actually said, and did, when all that is provided is hearsay. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not sure if this can be done, though. Unfortunately. We can interpret what it's claimed he said to suit our preferences, we can point out inconsistencies in the Gospels and seek to resolve them or argue in favor of one version over another, but we can't do more than that.

Yes. I just have fond memories of the '60s and the pre-disco '70s, though I was too young to be an actual hippie.

We spend a lot of time talking about radical priests - Thomas Merton, Richard Rohr — Tom Storm

They're not radical priests. The Berrigan Brothers were, and the one that got the guy who sang "Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard" out of jail and on the cover of Newsweek. Even Father Groppi.

Oh no. This comment probably isn't pertinent, is it?

But what I want to talk about is the phenomenon of literalism in particularly Christianity and Islam, but also Hinduism and even Buddhism, that seems to have begun in the 18th Century — unenlightened

Ah. As opposed to the literalism which resulted when the early Church through Councils and otherwise tossed out what's been called the Apocrypha, or which resulted through the Protestant Reformation, or the division of the Church into western and eastern Christianity, for example. Well, that at least makes the claim regarding literalism as a reaction to peevish scientists and atheists somewhat more credible, as they haven't been all that much around until fairly recently. But I think modern fundamentalism is more a function of the Protestant evangelical tradition, which began during the Reformation. The stranger of the evangelicals, like the Puritans, took ship to God's Favorite Country as they didn't like and were shunned by the Church of England, a kind of quasi-Catholic Church established to satisfy the vanity and cupidity of Henry VIII. And here the tradition flourished, sometimes clashing with science, as in Tennessee and other states. But again, literalism even of this variety isn't merely a reaction to atheism or science.

. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
— Ciceronianus

Notice here that "truth" is represented as a way of life, a way of being, instead of as fact . — Metaphysician Undercover

If that's so, there would be no need to make reference to "the way" or "the life." They become mere surplusage as we lawyers would say; irrelevant and unnecessary. It would seem kinder to the author to assume he wasn't claiming that Jesus said "I am the truth, the truth and the truth" but drew a distinction between "the truth" and "the way" and "the life." Regardless, though, it's clear that Jesus is portrayed as claiming he alone is the way, the truth and the life. I don't think it's possible to reasonably construe these statements otherwise, so I don't believe this is the result of a literal, fundamentalist interpretation which can be considered a reaction to "atheist dogma." It isn't necessary to be an atheist to maintain that such statements are the foundation for the intolerance which has characterized Christianity during the 20 centuries of its existence (which is also characteristic of other religions which make claim to being the one true faith).

It's interesting you choose to quote from John. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." 14.6. It strikes me there isn't much in the way of love to be focused on here, and it sounds very much like those who don't accept Jesus--who are not saved thereby--are condemned.

Like the Devil, we all can quote scripture for our own purposes. If that's the case, are we to focus only on the "good" parts, for fear of provoking fundamentalism?

I think religious fundamentalism has been around a very long time. I doubt atheism, however virulent, has been a significant cause of it. I think the exclusive nature of Christianity (as expressed in the quote from John above) and the resulting intolerance is the primary cause. What Scripture says, and its interpretation--the correct interpretation--has been the subject of dispute and violence for centuries, and not because atheists ridicule it, but rather because there were, and are, people who don't accept it or fail to accept it's "true" meaning.

I don't consider myself an atheist, virulent or otherwise, but if we focus on the love expressed in the Gospels or elsewhere, what I would find most offensive is the remarkable lack of it in those who profess to be Christians in the present and in the past.

Concludes that the linguistic turn might have had its day.
— Wayfarer

If so, then only because it is by now ubiquitous. — Banno

Well, not entirely so, I fear.

I think the methods of analytic philosophy and OLP are useful and will remain with us as long as efforts are made to speak, write and think carefully and critically in an effort to curb, or perhaps discipline, the results of our efforts to obtain special insight merely by a kind of deep, intuitive consideration of things, ideas and concepts in abstract and without context, i.e. thinking about something really hard (contemplation).

Pretty cool, eh?

Unlike many here on the forum I don't have any antipathy toward religion. I suspect you can't separate it from other social factors when considering social history. — T Clark

I agree, but admit to antipathy towards particular religions, especially the Abrahamic versions, which I think are especially exclusive and intolerant; often violently so, and similar religions which claim to be the only way.

Yes, I understand, and in retrospect think you're correct. It was an expression of surprise, frankly; one better made in casual conversation than here.

I quite understand that you'd rather not be an advocate for the claims that were made about Christianity. There's no reason to be concerned about that, really. It's quite alright.

A discussion of the contributions of the Christian religion to Enlightenment values and the rights of individuals--especially those of women--seems to me out of place in a thread about incels. It's true, though, that the conduct of many Catholic priests serve as examples of the potentially harmful results of sexual frustration, though primarily to children, not women. So perhaps there is a connection of a sort.

Regardless, I'd be happy to discuss those supposed contributions if anyone cares to do so.

No, not ironic. Impervious to irony, it seems.

But I would think it should still be obvious. I think your comments regarding Christianity (which some would say includes Catholicism and Protestantism) are mistaken, remarkably so, in fact. But I didn't want to derail the thread by addressing them.

You know what CM is saying and you know they mean it. This is just passive-aggressive baloney. — T Clark

You seem an intrusive, prickly, sanctimonious sort. But I hope you're not.

In fact I even think Christianity, Catholicism and Protestantism following it, played an essential role in the formation of enlightenment ideals of equality, giving rise to individual rights and feminism. In other words, It's not the realization that those traditional norms existed without reason that gave rise those progressive ideas, they precisely followed from and are a logical conclusion of christian values (who were an inversion of Roman values, and pagan values, that came before). — ChatteringMonkey

I'm hopeful you're being ironic, but fear you're not. But I don't want to derail this thread. I couldn't help but take note of these remarkable statements, however.

he argument I bring is that there is no logical reason why we should change the status quo of gender and sex being separate, and that one's gender has nothing to do with one's sex, or societies laws and divisions by sex. We should never be frightened and confused of asking questions or examining our presuppositions. I think fear and confusion comes when change is made without adequate reason and/or poorly explained. — Philosophim

My reference to being frightened and confused was a reference to an old Saturday Night Live skit involving the "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer," a character played by the late, great Phil Hartman.

In fact, though, we should be careful what we do with the law. We're seeing laws, regulations and policies being adopted willy-nilly (as I said, I'm old) addressing gender already. No doubt there's more to come.

I am open of course to hearing whether society should change the meaning of certain words or laws and regulations. — Philosophim

I'd try to avoid changing or adopting law based on what people think themselves to be, however strongly and genuinely, myself. But I'm old, and your world frightens and confuses me.

Human consciousness of the law is generating the fear, not the law per se. — quintillus

The Stoics would say that what disturbs us are not things, but our judgments about them (to paraphrase Epictetus). That would apply not only to possibilities, but to what applies now. So, the law is the law, the weather is the weather, but how we judge them is in our control. To the Stoic, one need not fear the law. But one may know the law (the weather too) and assess its impact on potential action. I would say it's wise to do that, regardless of its ontological status.

I am simply saying that no given state of affairs, e.g. law, determines persons to act; nor do persons, nor can persons, determine themselves to act due to law. It is only out of the fear of serious punishment that persons do nothing of what is putatively prohibited by law. — quintillus

The penalty is a part of the law, though; it wouldn't exist but for the law. So, the fear is engendered by the law. It seems to me you're saying, then, that the law influences the choice.

iceroianus,
You, striving to validly designate something given as determinative of conduct, asked: "Is the weather determinative of human conduct? '' I decently explained why weather cannot be determinative of conduct. Hence, you situated me in an absurd situation. I was kind to you and politely answered you. Now, you unkindly radically insult me, by accusing me of uninteresting pronouncement, in response to your inane question. — quintillus

If you're making some claim to the effect that "the law must be changed" or "the law is ineffective" many would agree with you. If you're making some claim to the effect that "the law doesn't impact or influence human conduct" I think you're wrong. If you're saying something else about the law, I confess I don't know what it is you're saying.

Weather is wholly concrete physical substance which exists as entirely equivalent to itself; whereas a human being never coincides with itself, being always elsewhere, projected out unto a not yet, intended, future. Persons freely choose responses to given weather, weather does not choose human responses. — quintillus

Frankly, I may misunderstand you, but I wonder if your pronouncements (there doesn't seem to be another word for them, though "proclamations" come to mind) are, ultimately, uninteresting. Weather and law are givens (you say that about the law in another post). That much we may agree on. But we're organisms that are part of an environment, and our lives consist of interactions with the rest of the world of which we're a part.

Now, one can of course say that "I choose to wear a parka or something similarly warm when I walk through a blizzard on a windy day when wind chills are -20 Fahrenheit", or that "I choose to walk around a tree rather than walking into it." I could also say that "if I wanted to, I could choose to walk through a blizzard wearing a speedo", or "I could choose to blithely walk into a tree." I would in those cases be an imbecile, but I can choose to be one if I want.

So, the weather and the tree don't choose for me. Q.E.D.

If that's your point, it's hardly a novel or a remarkable insight.

Nobody would seriously claim that the weather or the law choose anything, of course. But the weather and other givens (including the law) influence or impact the choices we make in those circumstances where their application would have adverse consequences if particular choices are made rather than others. That may be the case only when we're aware of the consequences, and are intelligent enough to consider them, and capable of weighing means and ends and making an intelligent decision. It may not be the case if we cannot do so for one reason or another, or have desires which make the potential for adverse consequences or the consequences themselves irrelevant or of little or no concern, of course, If that's the case, though, it is because of other givens with which we must deal.

It is, ultimately, not merely incorrect to deem law to be determinative of human conduct, it is delusional. — quintillus

Is the weather determinative of human conduct?

Making laws is something we do. Homo juridicus, or something like that. Maybe homo legistoris?

Regardless, we won't stop making laws because they're "ontologically impossible." The law doesn't predict conduct, it assumes nothing. It's ascribed to, or it isn't. It's effective, or it's not.

The existence of a law is one thing, its merits or demerits is are another thing. Whether a law be, is one inquiry; whether it ought to be or whether it agree with a given or assumed test, is another and a distinct inquiry. The existence of law is one thing; its merit or demerit is another. --John Austin

The Oxford Dictionary used to state that a mystic was 'one initiated into the [Greek] Mystery religions', although the definition has now been broadened. — Wayfarer

Much broader, in fact. Of course, if we define "mystic" as an initiate into the mysteries, there were one hell of a lot of mystics back then. There were a good number of mystery cults. But it means something more, now, which I think can't be associated with the Eleusinian mysteries.

Merriam Webster:

Mystic; noun
1: a follower of a mystical way of life
2: an advocate of a theory of mysticism

Mystical; adjective
1. a : having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence
the mystical food of the sacrament
b: involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality
the mystical experience of the Inner Light

Mysticism, noun
1: the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics
2: the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight)

Cambridge Dictionary

Mystic, noun:
someone who attempts to be united with God through prayer:

Mystic, adjective:
relating to magic or having magic powers, especially of a secret, dark, or mysterious kind:

I think we use the word differently, now. What distinguished the ancient mysteries was knowledge of a sort, which was arrived at through rituals which were secret, hence mysterious.

Cicero wrote of the Eleusinian mysteries in his On the Laws:

For it appears to me that among the many exceptional and divine things your Athens has produced and contributed to human life, nothing is better than those mysteries. For by means of them we have transformed from a rough and savage way of life to the state of humanity, and have been civilized. Just as they are called initiations, so in actual fact we have learned from them the fundamentals of life, and have grasped the basis not only for living with joy but also for dying with a better hope.”

A more ecstatic, magical mystery cult was that of Dionysus. From what we know of the mysteries of Eleusis, they were more refined. A kinder, gentler mystery cult. The revelation wasn't received in the mist of frenzy, or in a sudden burst of communion with God, but through contemplation and ritual, over a period of days.

Interesting fact: Plato was a mystic, as defined by textbooks: 'initiate of the Greek mystery religions' (probably one of the orphic cults). — Wayfarer

Those of Eleusis, by my understanding. Eleusis was quite handy to those in Athens; not far away at all, relatively speaking.

But being an initiate didn't make one a mystic, at least as we understand the word. Many were initiated, including Alcibiades who is infamous for mocking the mysteries in public. Augustus, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius and even Commodus among the Roman Emperors were initiated to those mysteries; Julian as well, of course, being one of the last to be initiated. Cicero too. Aristotle also. I'm not sure any of them would have been called "mystics" as we use the word, with the exception of Julian.

I just felt that philosophy defined so generally or neutrally, and without the critical aspect (in the sense of social critique), was somewhat anemic. — Jamal

Dewey and other pragmatists (e.g. George Herbert Mead), proposed that philosophy should be applied to the resolution of social problems. I don't know if they engaged in "social critique" as you define it, though.

↪Ciceronianus That’s the spirit! — Jamal

Now that would be an "anemic" response, as in lacking substance. (Merriam Webster Online)

In fact, I almost used the word “anemic” in reply to Ciceronianus, the sensible no-nonsense pragmatist, but decided it was too rude. — Jamal

How thoughtful and kind of you to refrain from doing so!

But what an interesting, and revealing, word to choose. "Anemic" as in lacking force, vitality or spirit. Philosophy should be forceful, vital and spirited..powerful. Examples of proper philosophy would include Bergsonian proclamations of elan vital, then; or perhaps expositions of the Will to Power, or rhapsodies regarding the ubermensch. Something more manly, maybe, like Hemingway's "grace under pressure" or masculine and spirited or spiritual, like the English philosophy of "Muscular Christianity." I could go on and on, but don't wish to seem rude.

It's true we don't encounter such clamour (or glamour) in pragmatism or analytic philosophy. But we don't see it in ancient philosophy, either. In antiquity, such thinking would have seemed merely silly. It seems to have arisen in the 19th century. And perhaps that's what philosophy is, now. It strikes me that the appeal of such thinking is emotive, sometimes even mystic, sometimes even religious. For me, the expression of such ideas is best left to artists or the religiously inclined who are certainly better at it than those who call themselves philosophers.

Still, there’s something about it that makes me suspicious. The idea that philosophy is an independent ever-expanding toolbox, ready to apply to whatever exists—this is surely a fantasy. Philosophy is itself always historically situated, and part of what it does is to apply its tools to itself, even to its own tools, depending on the social conditions. — Jamal

Yes, but the pragmatist/quietist approach would certainly include among philosophy's purposes the application of its tools to itself. And if reason, critical analysis and the careful use of language are among those tools, pragmatists and quietists have been doing just that. Successfully, I think.

What's to be considered, I think, is whether we want such tools to be applied in and to philosophy. If they are, then philosophy probably wouldn't involve much in the way of proclamations regarding Truth, the Meaning of Life, Being (a la Heidegger and others), the Good, the Beautiful, Reality, God and other traditional philosophical concerns, because such proclamations require the creation and imposition of a system of ideas, and the application of the tools I refer to generally precludes the formation of a system that purports to resolve those traditional concerns.

When they're not applied, I think what results is mostly an expression of the wishes, intuitions, feelings and preferences of certain individuals, which may be inspiring and thought-provoking, which appeal to the wishes, intuitions, feelings and preferences of others. Perhaps that's what philosophy is, really.

I don’t have a specific question except: what do you think? — Jamal

The pragmatist in me thinks that philosophy should be devoted to the clarification of ideas and the application of critical intelligence to the resolution of problems of all kinds. The quietist in me thinks much the same, but would limit the problems to a particular type--those involving the pretensions of philosophy (those claiming special insight into Truth, Nature, Being, etc.) and their influence on thought and conduct in general. The stoic in me would say it also involves how to live a tranquil life.

What is faux about the doubt which he expressed? He doubted everything else (the entire external environment) and was left with himself, which he could not doubt, as "doubting" comes from something that doubts (self). No self = no doubt to be had. — Benj96

He "doubted" what he unquestioningly interacted with every moment of his life. Do you think he doubted the food he ate was food? Or that the paper he wrote on existed, or the pen (or whatever he used) did, as well, or doubted the chair he sat on? If so, it would be a very curious kind of doubt, one that was disregarded and that caused no uncertainty.