Ok, then what you are saying is that the word "fact" has two senses,

a) as actuality, reality, the world
b) as a statement about what is comprised in "a"

"a" isn't beholding to us, except in so far as we fit into it
"b" assumes the ability to conceptualize what is sensed in "a" to give it a place in our construction of the world. Judgement takes facts, as we understand them and relates them to other facts & conclusions, which yield truths. Only humans do this cognitively, so if no mind, no truths, just facts, just the world.

Facts do not describe anything. They're not descriptions. They ARE the world.

I don't understand that statement. Can you explain.

So then are you saying facts are propositions. Propositions that describe states of affairs. They are not, at least ostensively judgements, just statements of fact, so neither true nor false (I initially thought why not all true, since they can't be other than what they are, but I think ascription of truth to these statements gives them a valuation that they don't warrant, facts just are).

Facts exist separately from mind, they describe the world, current and in the past. Truths are made up of facts. So, if no mind then no truth, just facts.

There are sides to the post-truth (Colbert said it's almost two words, a weak word with a hyphen) world: Political, journalistic and public. All sides seem responsible in our world that revolves around the internet.

Many online news outlets troll readers with clickbait, catchy headlines that are meant to grab the readers attention but very typically have little to say. Sponsored articles are put in with their reported stories. Stories which, one would expect to be unbiased, express the writer's bias. Photos/video that magnify traits in ways that are out of proportion to reality.

The best example of a post - truth political candidate is Donald Trump who has twisted truth around so much that the public is no longer fazed by his misuse of it. His sincerity is a type of American mythic truth. The public's unconcern with his antics annoys journalists intensely and leads to an escalation of words and more media exposure for DT.

The public has increasing access and powers on the internet. Presenting views on the internet is as easy as my typing. The algorithms control what achieves page status(which can be problematic; search for abortion clinics and most google results end(ed) in anti-abortion crises centers). While in the past splinter groups were confined to locales, with the advent of the web and social media these groups have found new international audiences. Groups like ISIS were able to effectively recruit over the internet.

The public wants to be entertained on-line. They are more interested in a great dramatic conspiracy theory over what is truthful, the prurient over the pure and fake news that angers (like the PM of Pakistan's threat of nuclear retaliation for any action by Israel over a fake news report a couple of days ago), that drives their presence forward.

Progressive liberals can move towards the center they are able to contextualize and relativize their beliefs into the spirit of the law. Social conservatives are restricted, they have to be far more literal in their interpretation of their interpretation of their value systems, they have no ideological path to move towards the central option, if they do, they are no longer conservative.

Social conservatives are foundational, tied to certain basic beliefs which they cannot change and still remain socially conservative...family values, core values, core christian values & or beliefs.

I think conservative-christians/progressive christians mirror social-conservative/progressive democrats.
In our culture's christian value systems provide the basis for many conversations. My guess is that religious conservatism has as much natural affinity towards social conservatism as social conservatism has toward religious conservatism. A progressive christian social conservative seems to me to be impossible.

I think religion is a means of giving and maintaining order. It was tapped early on in the formation of societies. People bought into it because it made sense of their world and gave them a way to contend with their fears. As people found rational foundations for their beliefs, their reliance on religious explanation declined, but their reliance on religious value system (by both Atheists & Christians) remains strong, because is still is very effective in keeping order.

Isn't a least part of the reason why the merging of Christian and Moslem cultures so difficult, is the fundamentalist Moslems value systems does not match up well with contemporary Western value systems, making the conversation difficult, and each side view the other's actions as fundamentally flawed.

On one level If the world is what appears, then its appearance is prior to being. The objects of our experience must be differentiated one from another and we are only able to do this cognitively after the in-fact of our experience of what is apparent. The separation of what is from what appears is a formal/mental/rational/essential distinction not a substantive distinction, the formal-essential distinction presupposes but does not have to conform to appearance.

Perhaps there are no parts, just wholes. If each part itself is a whole, then perhaps we are talking about a classification issue. The discussion becomes one of how wholes interact. If two Hydrogen atoms meet up with an Oxygen atom, they may yield H20. The whole vs parts issue is transformed into a functional analysis of the relationship between discrete wholes.

"Do what I want you to, I'll do what I want to you". It even rhymes. I believe this describes any preference one may have when it comes to how people treat with and wish to be treated by others. This saying simply means this; regardless how it may seem, at their core, one can only use their own feelings about treatment to determine what treatment they deserve and what other people deserve. The feelings of someone else matters to someone and influences how they behave only if those feelings personally matter to them. 100% percent of the time. I feel that this way of thinking about it can describe all motivations relating to treatment preferences. I also feel that this clears up exactly why the golden rule has the problems it has, because it does not account for this, assuming it's true."

Let me make sure I understand what you wrote. Perhaps by rephrasing your ""Do what I want you to" as I'll behave in the manner I expect you to behave and "I'll do what I want to you" I'll act in a way I would want to be treated.

I will act towards you as if I were acting towards myself, and how I treat you is how I would expect to be treated. And, I guess your question is how could I ever know that the way I act is equivalent to the way you act or the way you want me to act or the way I ought to act?

[aside:
I liked

Maybe you meant to write something like, "Do what I want to me, and I'll do what you want to you."

Very naughty >:) ]

Yes privacy is a concern but I understand they are trying to make anonymous systems (I read that Goldman Sack has such a system). Since everyone on the network is aware of the transaction when it is made, this also helps secure the transaction. I read that a truly operational Blockchain system is very difficult to hack, that if it had been in place, the 80 million dollar Bangladesh hack would not have been possible.

The speed, safety, and the cost of doing transaction will determine whether all the money currently being thrown at this system will pay off. The issues you bring up about size and anonymity are real issues but I get the impression that it is just a matter of time, and apparently a lot of money thinks it is worth their investment to overcome these issues.

The uses of this system goes beyond the transfer of money, any transactions that require independent confirmations can be accomplished using Blockchain.

Given the exponential growth of corporations, it may be that they will supercede governments (corporatism is a old idea, it might also serve as a model for the structure of religion), or that governments will adopt the schema of a corporation, in which we all hold some stock, & get to vote our shares, set goals. Some corporations seem to be managed a lot better than many nations, but of course their considerations are very different and the existence of a corporation presupposes a preexistent order (yet trade conquered India didn't it, better order?). Corporate Nations might have a difficult time with entitlements, unless they can be shown how it can improve business, or perhaps they are set it as one of its corporate goals, realizing that by allowing a safety net it provides comfort to the many that don't and may never need it.

Jameson suggests the military is the mostly likely source of a new governments since strong effective chains of command are already in place, and he suggests the possibility of a utopia where everyone must belong to the military (Universal Conscription). All would be paid for since everything is done for the state. Sounds like camouflaged communism, but perhaps not. While Jameson's tongue is firmly in cheek in places, the military option is certainly possible in many countries where it's the most stable institution is the military.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. …

Sounds as though this is describing our situation. The events here and around the world are numbing. Death, destruction and chaos have become rampant everyday events. As long as nations are insulated from the outright mayhem the majority remain convictionless. Countries like Germany who accepted over 1 million immigrants from very different cultures over the course of a year, is quickly forming convictions.

Obama was never able to close Guantanamo because the military did not want it closed. Trump's 'team' can't seem to get the information he wants from people at the Department of Defense as well as other governmental bodies. Today, the head of the Catholic Knights of Templar rebuked Pope Francis' attempt at an intrusion in their affairs, which is remarkable in my opinion. Meanwhile Trump will soon assume control which has the majority on the edge. Mr. Trump has nominated Gen. James Mattis (ret.) as defense secretary and retired Marine Gen. John Kelly (ret.) as homeland security secretary. He’s also picked Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (ret.)to serve as his national security adviser. We all trust the military.

. If

truth is mind dependent and world dependent.

Then prior to mind no truth.

It seems to me that some things could be otherwise but others must always be as the are. The facts of the matter don't change, they cannot be anything but what they are. If truth is a judgement by the mind then it must be based on facts.

I think Fredric Jameson is correct in saying we are in last stages of capitalism. He suggests that we consider possible Utopias as models. I think he may be correct, and that there is a good chance that we will see a large transformation of societal values in this century. The politics of the few over the many will be a major point in any such transformation, and the use of Religion as a basis for societal control will also be a major point of contention in my estimation. I don't think a mature society needs to control its population, in the same way we have to had to control our population. Religion would become un-politicized into real communities with belief systems, and not hierarchies of power catering to national interests.

Hi jkop. The wager counts if the belief in G is a true/troth belief, if it is a mechanical wager done without any purity of intent, then it fails and it can provide neither consolation nor hope. Agnostics, I think they are well positioned at time of death to truly accept what they have questioned previously, which is not to say that atheists can't also convert.

Thanks about the hermits.

Yes, but in a democracy, the 80% control the nation's future.

Well in the case of the last election here in the states, 279 votes were all that counted, HRC received 2.8 million more popular votes than Trump, but she lost. The GOP out strategized the DEMS, no doubt about it. The majority supposedly picks the candidates, but as we saw last election here in the US (that bastion of Democracy) the primary process can/was fixed in favor of HRC. I like Italy's M5S decision to have its primary on line for its 137K members to vote, this seems fairer, if it can control the process.

Those who are most ardent about their religion tend to show up and they voice their feelings....also those who give deeply are deeply heard. Those who are nominative christians (the 80%) are typically happy to follow along with whatever their religion decides as long as it does not dive too deeply into their pockets or go brazenly against standard societal norms. I think society deep down realizes that it is better off with religion than without it, in my opinion. Or at least society does not seem to have matured to the point where it can operate in an orderly fashion for any extended period of time without Religious normative values. Even the Nazis understood society's need for religion, and they tried to establish its own churches. The conscious blending of religion with nationalism is a highly volatile mix.

s that really so? I don't think so at all - I think quite the opposite in fact. If we look at how things are, we see that people pay lip-service to God, by putting, for example "In God we Trust" on their money. But do they really trust in God? Doesn't seem like it to me at all. Do they put insurance clauses specifically precluding God's interference from liability because they want a reason to save money and to look good or because they really believe in God's interference? Do people call themselves Christians because they really follow the teachings and morality given in the Bible, or because they want to be seen and thought about well? In fact, I'd go as far as say that the world (really meaning the Western world) has never been farther from God than it is today, and it's never been close to God for most of its history either.

I don't deny that people pay lip service to the idea of God,however his presence is literally all over the place in USA, and what pertains to belief in him is still argued at the highest levels (Citizens United). The clash of the Moslem and the Christian cultures, is felt around the world. Smell that dark roast coffee.

Hey, I never met a hermit, have you? If you have literally met a hermit and he made sense to you, then clearly I am wrong, but in everything I've read, they all seem off a bit to me.

The indications of mass belief are found in the christian spine that supports most of our popular narratives. Society accepts and we expect to be happy for everafter. Our social spine depends on the values we share. Again, I think the 80/20 rule applies: 80% pay lip service to their faith, but 20% are ardent, in absolute numbers that's a lot of ardent people

We seem to agree on rest, except of course that you believe in God and I don't know.

It's a strange situation. The atheist can find no rational basis in the belief in a god, and the believer accepts faith as a gift. The theist position pervades western culture right down to its foundations, insurance clauses specifically preclude god's interference from their liability, he is on US capitol tender. Beyond the physical indications of mass belief there is its effect on what, how, even when we think, which I don't think any of us can fully escape (hermits go nuts, always been that way) the way it has affected our system of valuation, and valuation I think goes to the core/origin of rationality.

I personally don't think man can live without some sort of religion, even if that is a hallowed routine, that one faithfully practices. Truth existentially means "troth" fidelity to one's beliefs. Maybe Agostino is right, God is more interested how men live their life, then he is regarding their belief/non-belief in his existence.

Maybe being in troth with your own beliefs is more important than what is believed.

've understood the logic for some time now, Cava. But you still refuse to provide me with a definition of "God." You use this word as if I know what it means. I don't. You must provide it, or else the wager you argue for never gets off the ground.

Now, if, as you've said before, God can mean anything one wants, then I could define God as an evil demon, a la Descartes, or as a being who sends non-believers to heaven and believers to hell. In that case, I ought not to place my faith in him, which repudiates the outcome you argue for.

So our conversation seems to be caught in an infinite loop, the only way out of which is to state what you mean by God, once again. Let's see if you can do it this time.

I have told you that the concept of "God" in the wager, applies to any "God" that one believe in, and that the majority of people believe in a Good God, as a positive force of love and goodness and I explained my position as being agnostic.

I don't know which way I'll wager, that's why I asked for the input, for explanation of what each of you think. I appreciate and I am quite overwhelmed by all the fine responses, so thanks and Merry Christmas or whatever you celebrate! (Thorongil...Festivus starts with the listing of complaints)

Hey, good to hear from you and thank you for your addition.

It's funny how life works out. I moved to Florida about 16 years ago, good job offer and my father who was getting on in years lived close by. Over the course of my youth we had decent father/son relationship, he worked a lot. That changed when I moved here. We developed a friendship that matured and enriched our familial relationship.

Last year he died. I went through the whole process with him, he knew he was not going to recover. The only thing he wanted was his family near him, he never asked for a priest, he went into hospice and he passed away the first night.

As I get older I wonder what my thoughts will be.

There must be some moment when a baby looking into a mirror understands that what it sees is itself.

Ok, maybe come at this a little differently.

Suppose you have a choice between, two cups of tea (I know you probably hate tea) one cup comes with a potential treat (something you consider a treat) the other with nothing, which would you pick?

All I am saying is that the expectation of additional utility to the choice of believing in God, given the circumstances , may cause real conversions. My viewpoint is agnostic re G at the moment but I am thinking ahead.

I promised my liver I would behave after next week. >:)

Kant arrives at his categorical imperative in his Groundwork by regressively tracing back normative sentiments to figure out what the presumed synthetic constituent parts of his transcendental must look like, he then moves synthetically to construct CI 1/2/3 .

The easy answer to actual practice is to set up rules, like the 10 commandments, easy rules that can be followed instead of trying to get the form of your maximum just right. That's why the 10 Commandments got such good press. They are easy to use. When stumped you go through some modification of the CI procedure.

Perhaps differently if one practices virtue, by submitting the will to test it against itself enough, it becomes 2nd nature for a person to act virtuously.

The main problem with Kan is his dismissal of desire, a kind of castrated hedonism (Adorno applies this to his aesthetics, and I think it also applies to his ethics)

I think that some sort of combination of deontological base system along with a consequent system is pragmatic. I think consequentialism is more suitable to the granular.

Considering the categorical imperative on the basis of the Kingdom of Ends, and allowing that contradictions in one's maximums must be entail contradictions to one's own authenticity. So, perhaps a virtuous lie. Thinking of it as an attempt to purify intent under the presumption of moral law that ought to guide our actions, and control of the less charming aspects of our will.

I think authenticity is about the coherence between how we act and our acceptance of responsibility for these actions, regardless of their size.

Certainly, but think about it ... politicians on all sides of the interested parties have to realise the truth - namely what each party wants out of Syria and how to ensure that their nation gets that. People afflicted by the conflict should also realise the truth, because that's what will best enable them to escape or defend themselves. Pretty much everyone needs to understand the truth (ie, reality) in order to play their cards the best way possible. What else can they do? Is there a better alternative?

The only truth for certain is that scores upon scores of innocent people are dying, and people are being totally dislocated to places where they are not being welcomed. All the major participants and their supporters are responsible, but the world will not hold them responsible (except for the Terrorists whom all sides point at, whose barbarism in the name of religion demonstrates a medieval brutality toward man and his works) since many of these same participants hold the world in thrall.

How can it be changed? I don't know that it can be changed.

Yes, I don't quite agree with Doxastic Voluntarism view that people elect their own beliefs, I think we tend to play roles, (husband, wife, teacher, student) adopt common beliefs, which is not to say that we can't make our own choices, just that we don't typically have that much say in the choices we have to make we simply accept them.

As I stated most people in the world are raised within some sort of religion, and many of these are only religious as a means of identification. You say you're a Christian, an acceptable 'label'. I explained to you that I am agnostic about God, but you refuse to say anything about your conception of God. So ?

If there is a God, then regardless of whether you end up in heaven or hell, you 'end up'. If there is no God then I don't think you 'end-up' anywhere,i.e. you are no longer existing.

Moreover, you assume doxastic voluntarism, a topic I actually made a thread about a while back. What this means is that you assume I can choose what I believe. I have my doubts that this possible, as it seems apparent that I can't just will myself to believe something, like flipping on a light switch. This is true even if I want to believe something. Wanting to does not mean that one does or will believe.

Sorry I don't recall the thread, but it sounds interesting. I don't doubt that our thoughts are shared. We all speak a language, and we have access to similar materials, we seem to have similar emotions and experiences. I didn't invent God, I read about him, I was baptised, and brought up in a faith with teachings, traditions, sacraments and rituals. The vast majority of the world grew up in some sort of religion or standardized cultural practice that seems to make sense of why we are and how we ought to act.

Whether people ever make anything out of their upbringing is another story, my guess is that 80/20 rule applies, with 20% of those who say their are Christians actually practicing Christians. (Perhaps nominalism has its roots in theology)

What if God privileges honest disbelief in him as opposed to dishonest belief for the sake of personal comfort, as your wager would have it? In that case, I ought to wager that he doesn't exist.

I think then that your question comes down to this: Is existence preferable to nonexistence. You have no choice if there is a god. You will face some sort of judgement. If there is no god then no judgement but also no existence.

You also referenced some "above post" and I looked, I saw the post to John, but no other likely candidates, but then again I never seem to find what I am looking for.

There's no fence sitting in war - fence sitting means death - and jumping on the wrong side of the fence also means death. You just have to get it right.

This is the viewpoint of the person considering the conjecture.

No, I don't believe War is about truth. It is about the immorality of man with man, it is an ethical issue, it is not an epistemological issue. It is about the rough reality of life, which is not cast in any book of logic.

We live in a world where "...only small groups of men who, however, hold in thrall many million of their fellow human beings and who defend their own antiquated interests" (Strauss) When I think about the war in Syria, there is no way I can think of this being the 'truth'. An evil man who is willing to sacrifice the whole of his nation, men, women and children so he can hold on to power. That can't be true in any sense of the term.

I think the person who has to make a deathbed conversion, takes everything into consideration, their life as a whole with its joys and sadness. The utility of the choice presents a conceivable way out, similar to how the prodigal son saw the return to his family as a way out of his starvation, but it was only by his sincere act of contrition to his father that he was accepted back into the family and they rejoiced.

Tomorrow

Do you believe God exists? I am not sure.

He thought that God's existence is outside the universe, that we can't know him as he is, only as he is revealed. But regarding his power, he said that for God it has all occurred, everything past present and future. For him the universe is a memory and since he is perfect he can't change what he remembers any more that we can change what we remember. Therefore we are free to act without his interference.

Yes, reason and rationality are important but they are important in their own way, just like love and art.

Part of what I tried to post as an aside apparently got cast aside regarding God's power. I think I know St. Augustine's answer to this if you are interested.

Come on m-theory, I did not imply that that we can't use our reason, only that reason, logic are not everything that is important in life.

If there is a god I don't think he can be encompassed by the terms "rational or irrational". Was God being rational when he asked for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? I think there is more to life than logic, and some things which are not very logical may have more reality than what is logical, like love, art, Pascal's Wager >:O

Ok, are you a christian, or a theist or do you believe in a god?

When you know all hope of recovery is gone, do you seek forgiveness or do you go steely eyed into oblivion. I've looked into those eyes.

I am an agnostic, which I have also mentioned a couple of times in this thread, hence the interest....so what do you say when the priest comes around to you, "keep on trucking"?

I've tried to answer your questions, please allow me to ask you a question. Do you accept that this argument is existential and not logically based, that's its validity is not based on logical truth or falsity.

Wot.

War of tanks?