What counts as necessary?

Rational arguments for treating blacks horribly would be good according to that...

That argument is rational, and it is good for something to be rational...

According to what you said...

...it is good if something is rational... — Judaka

Being rational requires only consistent meaningful language use and valid inference. Rational arguments can lead to things that are clearly not good.

What the heck is going on in the US? — jorndoe

The result of fifty years worth of bad government.

So, this boils down to what exactly counts as being necessary...

If A is existentially dependent upon B, then B is necessary for A.

There are far far too many A's that are existentially dependent upon clothing to deny the necessity of clothing.

There were a couple different points being made...

My basic point(the reason I first posted) was that natural reason does not demand coherency. If that were true, it would not be possible for a normal average everyday layperson to hold contradictory beliefs.

But they do.

The bit about Gettier was in agreement with your other point about someone being convinced that contradiction is acceptable. Except, with Gettier, that contradiction is not admitted...

Smith cannot believe both, that he will get the job, and that someone else will get the job.

para-consistent logic

Gettier...

Racism is in such short supply these days... — NOS4A2

Devaluing another group of people based upon the color of their skin is not in short supply.

Your head is currently up the ass of a bonafide racist.

Calling peaceful protestors "sons a bitches" for quietly kneeling during the national anthem, and then not ever considering the grievance, but rather insisting that that demonstration was somehow anti-American and disrespectful to American armed services, was a blatant act of denying black Americans the right to peaceful protest and the redress of grievances.

You appear to be saying that within an individual's own tendency to reason (and this is what I called natural reason), a person would allow the existence of contradiction. I disagree. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am saying that people hold contradictory beliefs.

The issue to address here is the question of why natural reason (meaning the innate ability of human beings to engage in reasoning) demands coherency. — Metaphysician Undercover

It does not.

All sorts of people engage in reasoning despite having self-contradictory(incoherent )beliefs. Some refuse to even consider the self-contradiction even when the incompatible beliefs are picked out and compared/analyzed side by side.

I would concur.

We cannot know the future... — Janus

We can correctly predict.

Biblical and biblically based prophecies and revelations...

I believe that there have been and continue to be far too many to even be able take each into deliberate consideration.

We can certainly know what they all have in common, nonetheless.

Fear drives them. Reality feeds the belief, regardless of whether or not the belief matches reality. I mean... regardless of whether or not the belief is true. Clearly they were not. Hence, we're here - in the here and now - talking about then. They believed the end was near. It was not. They were wrong. They formed and maintained strongly held belief; conviction; about much of what was happening around them at that time.

Those beliefs turned out to be false.

Belief in the end of times, that the end is near, etc., have lasted for two thousand years. It transcends generations. Throughout each generation there were widely shared, deep seated, common belief(s) - it was commonly believed - that what was happening at that time was proof that the return of God was near; or the end was near, or some such.

They've all been wrong enough for me to pay them no mind.



Prophetic speakers vary widely regarding how far into the future they care to venture a guess about what will happen. The amazing thing to me is that so many lose sight of those who got it right at the time.

To some...

Those numbers mean nothing to me.

:smirk:

Caring what others think about us is inevitable. Blindly following(agreeing with/to) the value system underwriting the judgment of others about us is not necessarily.

The lbgtq community is chock full of people who have cast that value system aside, for example.

The US is amidst a similar transformation between old white racist beliefs and new more inclusive, less fearful(xenophobic) ones...

:point:

Misplaced decimal point...

Good catch, I wasn't paying attention...

0.66

I do not think that that ratio is trustworthy reliable ground for any conclusion about the quality of the individual's contributions... at all.

In a time long ago, on an internet now far away, there was once a philosophy site that had a karma feature. Each participant/member had a karma score which was determined/established by how other members voted, and the ranking was visible to everyone at all times. I take it that that score was influenced by how the interlocutor voting felt after interacting with the member. An individual score could range from -10 through +10, if I remember correctly.

Assuming interpretation was accurate(which is a stretch around here sometimes), that may be a relatively good, or at least better, indication of at least one qualitative aspect of an individual poster. How they 'made' others feel with their own word use(I don't like that accounting practice). How others felt after... that's better.

Here, my mentions over comments score is 6.6. The karma score on the aforementioned site was 8 point something or other.

You still have never been able to respond to anything I've said beyond to attack me personally in some way. — Pro Hominem

Where have I attacked you personally? The reverse is easily shown, so...

Offer one criticism of white privilege that follows from what I've been setting out here. We can go from there. You'll have my undivided attention.

Got one?

You still have never been able to respond to anything I've said... — Pro Hominem

That's not true at all. What valid response and/or criticism have you levied that I've not given due attention to?

If you can't sell your message, it doesn't matter what your message is.
— Pro Hominem

There are those whose aim it is to obfuscate, deny, distort, and refuse to hear the message... so it cannot be sold.

I suspect you are one.
— creativesoul

Because no one who doesn't agree with you can legitimately oppose racism? Because you have some special understanding of the issue that only you can possess due to the moral superiority of your particular experience? Because black people taught you about white privilege, therefore it must be real? — Pro Hominem

No. It is for none of those proposed reasons that I suspect you are aiming to muddy the waters and deliberately confuse the issues. Rather, it's because I've assumed that you are capable of understanding what's been written.

I could be wrong about that.

Still the root of the problem is the existence of the categories it seems. — ChatteringMonkey

Red kool-aid would still stain clothes even if we did not call it "red". The root of the problem is not language. That misgiving has been addressed more than enough in this thread.

If you can't sell your message, it doesn't matter what your message is. — Pro Hominem

There are those whose aim it is to obfuscate, deny, distort, and refuse to hear the message... so it cannot be sold.

I suspect you are one.

The only thing that all chairs have in common is that we call them all "chairs".

That's nothing that raising the minimum wage won't fix... quit talking about race!

:roll:

This is sarcastic in tone... to be clear.

I'd be thrilled if anyone in this thread were prepared to dissolve statements, assertions, beliefs, propositions and truths into one colour... — bongo fury

Mental correlations drawn between different things. But that's another topic in it's entirety, and I'm unprepared to add anything more to this one. Seem there are enough knowledgable folk hereabouts already, and I'm not one of them to begin with.

:wink:

That which has an effect/affect.
— creativesoul

Seconded. — Mww

We seem to be in the minority.

:wink:

I'm having a bit of trouble here understanding what "the truth" and "the truth besides the truth" are doing here. They could be left out completely, or better summarized, and by doing so gain clarity. Particularly with regard to the perfume example.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An advertisement shows a pretty woman holding using a perfume, she smiles at you while offscreen a man with a deep, masculine voice describes the qualities of the perfume.

"The Truth" most would advocate should be sought is the actual quality of the perfume but the "truth besides the truth" is that the perfume will be sold by the image of the beautiful, possibly famous woman and the authoritative, dependable voice which explained how good it is.




What's lost aside from unnecessary complication/confusion if we change the above to something like what's below???

An advertisement shows a pretty woman holding using a perfume, she smiles at you while offscreen a man with a deep, masculine voice describes the qualities of the perfume.

What matters most is the actual quality of the perfume, but it will be sold by the image of the beautiful, possibly famous woman and the authoritative, dependable voice which explained how good it is.

It has become a waste of time to read anything that creativesoul writes because they are so inconsistent. — Harry Hindu

I've been accused of much, but that one does not happen very often at all. Perhaps after reading through page seven and eight to get a feel for what white privilege is, you could then go straight to the source by clicking on my avatar and perusing my comments.

Care to show these purported inconsistencies by quoting them and placing them beside one another?

All you are doing is putting words in their mouth... — Harry Hindu

Page seven and eight Harry. seems to understand those words just fine. His defense here is a nice surprise. I'll discuss with you whatever you like so long as it's relevant to what I've written and what that entails. I suggest first setting your own preconceptions about that aside though, because I'm not inclined to argue against stuff that I've not said or doesn't follow from what I have.

I do this in my spare time, and that is currently in short supply. Make it count.

Why do we grant the dichotomy to begin with? Are those the only two types of reasoning, and are they mutually exclusive?

Is Donald Trump the cause of Americans divisions and concerns about globalism and racial and ethnic diversity or is he the symptom? — prothero

The symptom of much deeper problems... after he's treated(and hopefully eradicated by anti-viral meds) the problems will remain. Those attempting to bring the problems to light will be compared to previous 'enemies' of America, like communism and socialism...

Are there parallels between the sock story of two methods and top-down vs. bottom-up methods of reasoning? That's the 'sense' I had from the very beginning, but I wanted to allow you to flesh it out and/or say so yourself.

I was thinking that method 2 could be a result of figuring out that method 1 had unsatisfactory results; an adjustment based upon findings.

Lining up the middle of the sock instead of the top now strikes me as a really curious leap of insight in itself... — Srap Tasmaner

Trial and error...

Living with certain health issues is still living. Clearly those alone were not enough to kill the people.

When such people contract Covid19 and die, the death is a result of the combination of the two.

To say that they did not die as a result of - FROM - contracting Covid19 is just plain false. They were living with the conditions prior to.

:roll:

Take a bit of time and careful attention, if you want to learn about the argument I find most convincing against the God of Abraham, and look at Epicurus' Problem of Evil, and all that that entails.