the Japs — Apollodorus

Nice racial slur.

Your opinion does not matter here. It doesn't matter if it does not make sense to you. The 'logic' you've employed here is flawed as well.

Whether or not the Japanese civilians were targeted has nothing to do with your belief or opinion. It has to do with whether or not they were being targeted. If they were the target, they would not have been warned by pamphlet of the day it was going to happen. They were warned more than once of that day. The warning allowed many to flee the area prior to, which tremendously reduced the casualities. Those are facts.

There would have been far far more casualties had the warnings not been dropped. That is not the sort of thing done if civilians were the target, if reducing the number of civilian casualties was not priority, and/or if those civilian deaths were not troubling.

What is the secret to being happy in a foxhole? — baker

Accept the way things are. Know what difference one can make. Be content with what one does and/or has done.

...civilians have always been targeted in wars — Apollodorus

Civilians were not the targets of the nuclear weapons used to end WWII in the Pacific. Stop spouting that bullshit! There were manufacturing facilities crucial to the Japanese war effort in both cities. It is well known that the knowledge of civilian casualties deeply troubled FDR and Truman. In fact, the civilians were forewarned by dropping pamphlets from the sky so as to reduce the numbers of civilian causalties, because the US wanted to reduce the civilian casualities as much as possible. That's not the sort of thing that is done if the civilians are being targeted.

You don't need any justification. Why limit yourself with reason. Transcend reason. Be a force of nature — Wittgenstein

Yeah, who cares whether or not our beliefs are reasonable, rational, and/or true? Be a force of nature.

Geez!

Justification is all about the ground(basis) for the belief in question. Whether or not a belief is justified is determined by the truth/falsity of the ground(other beliefs that support the belief in question), as well as the reasoning method used to arrive at the belief in question. So, it doesn't do the notion of justification any 'justice' to ask "who?".

Perhaps an example would help...

If my lifelong friend has always owned a Ford, and I know that he was about to buy a new car last week because he told me so, and he picked me up in a new Ford this morning so we could go to our tennis courts to play our weekly matches, then I would be justified in believing that the new car he drove this morning was his new car.

So insofar that an entity is able to truthfully have something predicated of it, then we are justified in believing that it exists. And, I imagine we'd agree, that whether we speak about something doesn't influence its existence either, so sure things exist before we give accounts of them. — Moliere

I agree with the first claim(although I'm not sure of the significance of saying something "truthful"), disagree with the claim that speaking doesn't influence(some things') existence, and agree with the last claim... (some)things exist before we give accounts of them.

I suspect our ontologies/taxonomies will differ in a few remarkable ways. Quine's maxim, which you've borrowed here in this account, had an agenda. Namely to target the superfluous nature of the terms "existence" and "exists" and the nature of abstract objects.

Just to make sure we're not delving into exegesis, as I also refused to with 180 Proof , let's just drop the name Quine and say "this account", if that's ok with you. — Moliere

Fine by me.

However, I certainly did not introduce anything like that. To exist is to be the value of a variable -- which is to say that first order predicate logic's existential operator is in use. So insofar that an entity is able to truthfully have something predicated of it, then we are justified in believing that it exists. And, I imagine we'd agree, that whether we speak about something doesn't influence its existence either, so sure things exist before we give accounts of them. I'm just not making a distinction really.

To exist is to be the value of a variable
things exist before we give accounts of them

My issue with Quine's account was posed to you. My issue with the account you're offering is that those two claims directly above are mutually exclusive. If the one is true, the other cannot be, and vice-versa.

The position Nos is attempting to promote is one that exonerates people like Trump and any other promoters of the known falsehoods about 'widespread election fraud' and the idea that the election of 2020 was stolen from Trump.
— creativesoul

It is one thing if NOS4A2 believes speech has no power only because he wants to exonerate Trump; another entirely, if he held this opinion prior to Trump’s promulgation of “widespread election fraud”... — Leghorn

His wants are irrelevant.

Not only does it(systemic racism) exist, but there are many who are currently attempting to stop the public from learning about how it does by virtue of making a concerted effort to discredit one of the means/methods of that teaching(in law schools)... aka Critical Race Theory. The amount of sheer disinformation and misinformation about what it is and where it's taught that is being spoken in conservative media is astounding.

The problem is that the impotence of current conservatism is becoming more and more apparant in the marketplace of political ideas. The American public quite simply does not agree with it and who it ultimately benefits. So, the current effort of conservative media is to manufacture falsehoods about CRT for the expressed purpose of making it unacceptable to Americans. The dishonesty of course is that the means for making it uncceptable is to mislead Americans about it.

The thread seems to have ontology underwriting it. The idea of something 'obtaining as a fact' seems a bit unnecessarily confused to me. If we're looking to effectively exhaust what things like Santa and Pegasus are, then it seems that the simplest way is best. I do not think that introducing "facts" helps here.

Similar to Banno's categorization of Pegasus as "mythical", both Pegasus and Santa are fictional characters. Fictional characters are not best described as 'not real'. Fictional characters have actual effects/affects. Thus, they are most certainly real, just as all things that have an effect/affect are.

I see. That seems relevant to me. So, what other dialogues are relevant to the Euthyphro and how?

Is there no difference between being taken account of and existing prior to that account?

Seems Quine doesn't honor/accept that distinction.

For a proper understanding of the dialogue I think it is essential to take into consideration the author's own views as reflected in other writings... — Apollodorus

Other writing by Plato, or other writings by others interpreting Plato, or writings by others claiming to be based upon Plato?

'Platonists' who use notions like God, Ultimate Reality, or Universal Consciousness are like Plato in namesake only.

1. To the Platonists, God, Ultimate Reality or Universal Consciousness is everything. Philosophy of the monistic idealist type is what explains reality for them. — Apollodorus

Well, I'll have to take your word for what the Platonists believe. It does, from my vantage point, look a bit different from Plato. Regardless, when it pertains to monism, Spinoza's Ethics is the only account thereof that I've been fortunate enough to read that is coherent. However, it too assumes the existence of that which can conceive in and of itself(God). This seems too tangential to the OP though, so I've nothing further unless it can be showed as relevant. Even then, my interest in that is waning quickly, and I'll not want to be a part of distracting dialogue. I don't like it in my threads, so...

The position Nos is attempting to promote is one that exonerates people like Trump and any other promoters of the known falsehoods about 'widespread election fraud' and the idea that the election of 2020 was stolen from Trump.

Yet again, a power of speech.

Thankfully, it seems that enough people know better than to claim that the promotion and manufacture of doubt and mistrust in the election of 2020 had no effects/affects on the followers of Trump and/or the current confidence of Republican voters in the American system. We all know, including Mitch McConnell, as per his own initial condemnation of Trump's central role in the insurrection of Jan. 6, that Trump's free speech had effects/affects that led directly to certain beliefs and behaviours culminating in the attempt to stop the peaceful transition of power.

Ad homs are also something that can be done with the power of speech...

Okay.

:brow:

This doesn't help your case Nos. Now you're just muddying the waters with irrelevant gibberish, false accusations, misinformation, and demonstrably false accounts of our conversation...

...and you're doing all that, once again, with the power of speech.

Saying something is also a power. Moving the goalposts is yet another. You're doing both... with speech.

The question I asked remains however. If God is everything, what sense does it make to talk about whether God invented anything at all? That was the point.

Nah. I'm not as big a fan of Witty as many others are here. In general, I mean, I've read enough of the letters to Cambridge to see the man behind the philosophy. Also knowing that the overwhelming majority of his published writing was gathered, collected, and published posthumously. Certainly not a fan of Plato's 'dialogues'. They seemed more like monologues to me(the ones I've read).

However, given the hstorical context, and what both had to work with at the time, they are both brilliant in their own ways.

I don’t use them as a means of convincing others. I use them as a means of expression, of creativity, to communicate my thoughts and to manifest my thinking. — NOS4A2

Nah, Nos, you're full of shit.

You claim words have no power. Then you use them because they do, in fact, have the power to...

...as a means of expression, of creativity, to communicate my thoughts and to manifest my thinking... — NOS4A2

The ability to express is a power. The ability to communicate is, once again, a power. The ability to manifest thought is, yet again, a power...

There's currently a push in Florida which is basically attempting to survey potential students at universities as a means to acquire knowledge of their political stances/leanings. The claimed reasoning for this is to promote critical thinking and the questioning of assumptions in the guise of increasing diversity and well rounded considerations of ideologies. This push is being performed under the guise of free speech. It all sounds nice until we understand that it's not an attempt to broaden the critical thinking and inclusivity that it claims to be. Rather, it's an attempt to remove the discussions of certain kinds of political and philosophical thought such as communism, marxism, and democratic socialism from being considered with unbiased and/or positive discussion to being labeled as "stale ideologies". It is an attempt to not allow such political stances to be freely discussed on campus, and allowing only(presumably) their counterparts that privilege.

To use the idea of promoting diversity and inclusiveness as a means to suppress discussions and expressions of dissenting and/or oppositional ideas/thoughts in order to promote more conservative(politically speaking) ideas and discussions is disgusting.

Ah. Forgive me for not having read the primary source, or for having forgotten if I have. I've nothing further, for Socrates' answer introducing the just as the whole of piety and impiety seems to unnecessarily multiply entities. Given the historical context and knowledge base of the time, it's understandable.

Be well.

Censorship begins, in part, with the conferring of power to speech. One must fear the effects of speech to seek to regulate it, and to do this one must suppose the speech has enough power to cause effects in the first place.

The problem is conferring power to speech is much like conferring power to kings; the only power they have is what society gives them. — NOS4A2

It's not the 'conferring' of power to speech that is the problem Nos. Speech has power. We all know this. That's why we use it. That's why you're here using it as well. As a means to convince others that speech has no power(if by that I mean the abillity to influence subsequent thought, belief, and behaviour). Your stance here is untenable. If you believed that speech has no power, then you would not be using it as a means to convince others that it has no power.

It is simply untrue that words possess any power over that of man. After all, he is the creator of them. So we should work to dispel that myth, defang speech, remind people of their power over and above that of words and opinions, and free ourselves from our most deep-seeded superstitions. — NOS4A2

It does not follow from the fact that man created something that that something does not have the ability to influence man's thought, belief, and behaviour. Your reasoning here contradicts your actions. I think it's called a performative contradiction...

If you believe that words have no power, then what sense does it make for you to use them as a means for convincing others of that idea?

What Socrates tries to get Euthyphro to see is that piety without regard to goodness and justice leads to impiety. — Fooloso4

Could you offer a succinct explanation of this? I have always understood the problem to be an issue for divine command theory(that what counts as pious, just, and good is either independent of the gods or is arbitrary). Have I misunderstood?

That's been my focus.

Yes, so the dilemma could be interpreted this way: did the gods invent the language game associated with piety, or are they just playing it? — frank

How would that work if we also hold that "God is everything?"

Right. This thread is about the Greek arguments concerning the origins of piety, goodness, and justice... isn't it?

immerse a crucifix in a vat of his own urine and name it Piss Christ — Todd Martin

Interesting example... last I checked, Warhol's exhibit had been banned for exactly that piece. In Cincinnati anyway. Not exactly impugnity, but not exactly banned either...

Leads to utter nonsense, meaningless language use, equivocation fallacies, and inevitable self-contradiction and/or outright incoherence.
— creativesoul

In other words, it leads to typical troll behavior. — Olivier5

I have no reason to believe that "God is everything" leads to typical troll behaviour. I cannot find any way of making sense of "God is everything", at least not if "God" refers to some supernatural entity.

Question could lead to an interesting thread...

Rather than discuss which 'philosophical position' we've changed our minds and/or belief about, it's far more fruitful to discuss which particular beliefs, and it's even more interesting to discuss changes in deeply held beliefs, you know, those accompanied by nearly unshakable convictions along with those which formed a basis for a large plurality of subsequently formed and/or held beliefs.

Is that too much to ask for?

Agrippa's trilemma argument:

1. All arguments are one of the following:
a) Infinite regress: each premise requires an argument and the premises of the argument requires another ad infinitum.
b) Circular: The conclusion appears in the premises.
c) Axiomatic: We accept sans justification the truth of the premises.
2. None of a), b), or c) are acceptable
Ergo,
3. Sound arguments don't exist — TheMadFool

Hey Mad!

Interesting post that the above was included within. I've a question though regarding what's quoted above. What reasons are there for believing 2., and how can we do that much without rendering the entire line of thinking as untenable, and/or self-defeating? In addition, how does 3 follow from 1 and 2?

Socrates’ human wisdom ignorance is grounded in his knowledge belief in God... — Fooloso4

Corrections were necessary...

When deliberately spreading known falsehood becomes the catalyst for newly formed beliefs that lead people who believe the lies to violent insurrection of the government, such as Jan. 6, and those complicit in such spread are current elected official of the government, and the government is one such as the US has, then there is more than adequate reason for punishment and/or removal of such elected officials for reasons ranging from treason against the United States to defrauding the American people to inciting a riot to a failed insurrection attempt.

Free speech is crucial for fostering a well informed electorate, but it has proven to also be pivotal in creating the conditions for a large portion of the population to be deliberately mislead about several keystones of the American system... free and fair elections, easy access to exercise voting rights, and the peaceful transition of power.

Jan. 6, and the circumstances surrounding it, is not good reason to silence free speech. It is more than adequate reason to punish those who've defrauded the American electorate by convincing so many to believe known lies and falsehoods to the extent that they believed it was necessary to stop the peaceful transfer of power by any means.

The free speech of such leaders perhaps ought not be looked at as good reason to silence dissent, but rather as a prima facie example of what domestic enemies of America look like and punish them accordingly, even given that they were/are elected officials. They were, and have continued to be complicit in an erosion of trust in the government that has it's only precedent in how blacks, minorities, and recently poor whites view the government. The latter was and remains well founded belief. The former(Jan. 6) was ginned up by the likes of Trump and all those who did not act to remove him and/or fight against him during the time he was promoting all the distrust while taking actions to impede the success of the last election simultaneuosly.

Because that's how language works...

God is Satan. God is good. God is bad. God is evil. God is...

God is everything. — frank

There ya go.

Leads to utter nonsense, meaningless language use, equivocation fallacies, and inevitable self-contradiction and/or outright incoherence.

I need not adhere to any worldview that's prominent in my lifetime. Bits and pieces of lots of them, sure...
— creativesoul

I think you probably have to. — frank

If you mean that I probably have to adhere to bits and pieces in order to interact(currently, as an adult). Sure. If you mean that my initial worldview(mostly adopted as they all are) adhered to prominent ones amongst my family, friends, and acquaintances while developing that initial worldview, sure.

But altogether adherance is only necessary if one lives in a small pond with limited worldviews.

The One is divine. The Soul is an emanation from the One. — frank

So then the human soul is not the divine.