He's not? — frank

He's Jor-el. Also - Lois Lane believing Clark Kent can or cannot fly is not a property of Clark Kent. It's not a property at all.

Superman is not Clark Kent.
Istanbul is not Constantinople.
The number of planets is not three squared.
It is not contingent that the number of planets equals nine, even if there were nine planets.

About as likely as monkeys typing Shakespeare. By which I mean, not even worth thinking about. — T Clark

Hey @Hanover, I want you to see this. I’m so fucking brilliant. I want you to seeth with envy.

About as likely as monkeys typing Shakespeare. By which I mean, not even worth thinking about.

Whether I was wrong to do so, I interpreted T Clark to be referring to innate racial differences. — Jamal

You understood me correctly.

Aren't there multiple studies showing that, for example, Asians have a higher mean IQ than other races? Wikipedia catalogues the general issue of race and intelligence. — Leontiskos

As I noted, I’m not interested in starting a discussion on this issue. I had a specific question I wanted an answer to and I got it. I’m done.

Yes. — Jamal

Thanks

And without stating it explicitly he implied that this greater aesthetic ability of whites was connected with higher IQ. — Jamal

I’m not looking for an argument or even an explanation. I’m just curious. Is expressing the opinion that white people are more intelligent as a class than black people cause for immediate banning?

It is a matter of fact that the mind is not an object in any sense other than the metaphorical, such as ‘the object of the argument’, ‘the object of the question’. — Wayfarer

I agree it’s not an object, but it is a thing. Now you and I will probably get in an argument about whether a thing has to be an object - something physical. I say, “of course not.” if you look at various dictionaries, there is some ambiguity, but there is a general acknowledgment that a thing does not have to be a physical entity.

Lao Tzu and I agree - anything that can be named is a thing.

you make a very valid point about how the soul is basically just the body. — Null Noir

I said the soul, as I see it, arose from the body. I didn’t say it is the body or is the same as the body. Those are completely different things, which we don’t need to go into here unless you want to.

It's fascinating, really. I have nothing to add since I’m still at my humble beginnings of philosophy and I would still like to learn. — Null Noir

As I noted in my post, the central issue you’ve raised is known as the mind-body problem - how does the soul or consciousness influence, operate, the body. It’s one of the biggest ongoing arguments in philosophy. I suggest you do a little reading on that. Look it up in Wikipedia or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

My claim was the mind is not a thing. Doesn't mean it's nothing. But it's not a thing, it's not an object. Your 'experience of the mind' is not an experience at all mind is that to whom experiences occur, that which sees objects, and so forth. It is not itself an object. That's one of the things that makes philosophy of mind such a big and elusive topic. — Wayfarer

This has the hallmarks of our usual discussions. We use the same words in different ways - give them different meanings. And then we argue about who’s definition is correct.

And, you see the philosophy of mind as a much larger and more elusive topic than I do.

Speaking figuratively, of course. — Wayfarer

My experience of my mind is just real as my iPhone. I was going to say my experience of my mind is just just real as my experience of my iPhone. I guess both are correct.

is that it is not any kind of thing. Nowhere, in the vast inventory of things we find in the world, will you find 'mind'. — Wayfarer

That’s an odd thing to say. I have my mind here right now in front of me. It’s as real as anything else in the world. It’s as much a thing as anything else in the world. As real as a 1909-S vdb penny.

Oops, I forgot - welcome to the forum.

How do you think the soul works? — Null Noir

I’ve always thought of soul as a near-synonym for mind, self, identity, ego, psyche, consciousness, or spirit. They each mean something a little different - they have different connotations and contexts - but I think when we use those words we’re talking about the same thing.

If there is such a thing as a "soul," where did it come from? — Null Noir

Many of us believe it arose from our physical bodies - our nervous systems - just like life arose from inorganic matter.

If the soul and the body are one and the same, how would that even work? Is it something akin to "you are the soul piloting a human body" type situation, like some spiritual people say? — Null Noir

You have laid out the mind-body problem, usually blamed on Descartes. It has been causing problems and undermining the credibility of philosophy and philosophers for hundreds of years.

Is "If P then Q; P; therefore Q" about events or propositions -- or both? It can be given either a causal or a logical construal. — J

OK, let’s be specific. Question - What caused the crash? That’s an important question and its correct answer is useful. Answer - the frange punctured the kambo which severed the gringle cord. That’s a proposition that is either true or false. And it would be true or false whether or not it was useful.

That’s enough here. I don’t want to go back-and-forth on this any more. You can give your response and we’ll leave it at that.

I don't quite see this. Aren't you saying that the statement "{some set of Xs} caused the plane crash" has to be true, in order to be of use? How then is causality an "apple" in regard to such a statement? The predication seems the same as in any other similarly phrased statement, and would follow the same inferential rules. — J

I think we’re just getting tangled in language here. Causality is not the same thing as truth. Causality is a relationship between events. Truth is a characteristic of statements - propositions.

When an investigation determines the cause of a plane crash, this is of course useful. — J

Yes, this is exactly the kind of situation I was talking about - where the idea of causality is useful.

But I'm confident the investigators also mean it to be true. Is there any reason to withhold that designation, in such a case? — J

Causality and truth are apples and oranges. An understanding of what caused the crash is useful for figuring out how to keep it from happening again and for figuring out responsibility and liability. In order for that understanding to be useful it must be correct - true.

I reject it too. — I like sushi

I think the concept of causality can be a very useful one, depending on the situation. At other times, it can be misleading.

Welcome to the forum.

, I need somehow to justify this eternal suffering. — kirillov

I don’t want to distract from your subject matter, so I’ll just say this and then begone - Not everyone sees life and the world this way.

Like all good philosophers, I will answer the question I want to answer rather than the one you asked. As a frame to the question you’ve asked I’d like to point out that many philosophers reject the idea of causation entirely.

It is not my intention to cause any disruption to your thread, so I will not take this any further.

Howse about you give us a brief summary rather than leaving half a response.

Clever. Obviously everyone could do that to their own eye. That's another loophole answer though - the real answer doesn't involve a loophole — flannel jesus

I’ve given up on being correct. I’m working on being amusing.

If you don't mind a spoiler, read unenlighteneds answer (which is more or less the canonical answer) and join the debate with us and Michael. — flannel jesus

Nope. I’m going to keep trying. Here is some more non-canonical answers.

One guy, I don’t know who, it might be @Baden, takes one of his eyes out, looks at it, and then leaves the island.

The guy who drives the ferry leaves the island every night.

Oops.

They can count, but... so what? What's the logic? From the point of view of any person showing up to the boat, how has he logically deduced the colour of his own eyes? — flannel jesus

You’re right, their ability to count doesn’t matter and I shouldn’t have put it in there but it doesn’t make any difference. The guy running the boat tells each person whether or not they got their eye color correctly. If they did they get on the boat. If they didn’t on their first try, then they know and can get on the boat.

They know they don’t have some color other than blue or brown, because if they did, no one would’ve showed up at the boat

none of these match the canonical answer but I would love to see your justifications anyway — flannel jesus

All the people except the guru have a pretty good idea what color their eyes are. After all they can count. So that night they go to the boat and get on. You haven’t said how they verify whether or not the person knows their eye color. Let’s assume that the guy who is running the boat asks them. They tell him what they figured out. If they’re right, they get on the boat and go. If they’re wrong then they definitely know what color their eyes are so they get on the boat and go.

One possible problem with this is that each person making the decision might be wrong and might have red eyes or some other color. But they know that isn’t true, because everybody showed up at the boat. They wouldn’t have all showed up if one of the people had red eyes. If that happened, they couldn’t be sure they didn’t have red eyes too.

Everybody but the Guru gets off the first night.

I think I can justify all of them, but I think this is probably the best

They all get off the first night.

Guru leaves immediately.

That’s what normative ethics is? Should we not criticise the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the criminalisation of homosexual relationships yes please thank you in Brunei? — Michael

If there’s nothing you can do about it and you’re not affected or responsible, shooting your mouth off is just a way to make you feel good about yourself.

But i did find the FOTC pretty funny. — AmadeusD

Ok, OK. I did too.

Wow. Dude, what the fuck side of hte bed did you wake up on. — AmadeusD

Oops! Sorry. How about this instead? Flight of the Conchords is not funny.

Wow. Dude, what the fuck side of hte bed did you wake up on. — AmadeusD

Now I have to say something mean to you too. How about this…

Fucking Kiwis

This is the topic I would like to talk about, — Samlw

You are welcome to talk about it. I wasn't suggesting your thread not be allowed. It would just make more sense if you would discuss troubles in your own country or in the world in general rather than pontificating about subjects where you have no credibility and where your opinion doesn't matter, no matter how self-satisfied it makes you feel.

Here's a brief summary of what I think you've written. Tell me if I got it wrong.

Rich people and poor people are socially equal because, while rich people have many material advantages, poor people have a better chance of building good character.

I'll just say I think this represents a very naive understanding of social equality.

I am interested in what people think about this. — Samlw

Some thoughts.

It annoys me you feel the need to step into this. As you note, it's a problem in the US, but not in most of Europe. Why do you feel the need to tell us how we should act. I don't get it.

I grew up with guns, mostly shotguns for hunting and a bit of target shooting with BB guns and rifles. I'm comfortable around them and people who use them. I have no particular problem with gun control within limits and I know conservative gun owners who feel the same way. The obsession of some liberals with gun control has forced many gun ownership supporters to more strident resistance to any gun control.

You put off discussion of the Second Amendment so I'll take it up. The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution were added to the text before it was originally approved by the states. They are known as the Bill of Rights. The one that matters the most to me is the First -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — First Amendment

For some people, the Second is the most fundamental.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. — Second Amendment

Part of their reason is that without access to firearms, none of the other rights can be guaranteed. I have some sympathy with that understanding. There have been all sorts of arguments about what that means, but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it applies to individual US citizens. Like it or not, that's the way it is.

Here's my main reason for my lukewarm support for gun control. The Democratic Party, of which I am a member, and liberals in general have put gun control hear the top of their political priority list. That has cost them dearly with the more conservative, Southern, rural, and male population. It has also drawn energy away from what I consider more important issues - things that will make for better lives for people in general and working class and poor people in particular. Examples include health care, taxation, education, jobs, and economic fairness. It has hurt the party badly, has very few positive results, and is unlikely to have positive results any time soon. Right now, support for strong gun control is just a feel-good, symbolic, self-destructive fantasy. Time to move it way down the list.

I’m a white, liberal, registered Democrat, but I recognize what you’re calling “woke” for what it really is. It’s a way for “progressives” to show their contempt for working class, white men without suffering the consequences of saying it directly. We liberals are now paying for that.

Senryū. :smile:

These do not generally include a season word and they are often cynical — javi2541997

I knew I could count on you. Thanks.

it's just such a tidy koan. — Banno

It also makes a good first line for a haiku, or whatever those haikus that aren’t really haikus are called. Hey, Javi [@javi2541997], what’s the right word?