That's the thin version. There's a bit more to it than that. It's more about the meaning of propositions than about the reality of the objects around us.

A realist might say that "Here is a cat" will be true exactly if there is a cat, here. The cat is independent of the utterance, and will be there whether the utterance is made or not, and indeed independently of the meaning of the utterance.

An antirealist might rather say that the truth of "Here is a cat" depends at least to some extent on the circumstances in which the utterance takes place, especially the way the utterance is used to 'carve up' the world; so to some extent for the antirealist there is only a cat if we all decide that's how we will talk... — Banno

Nice addition Banno. So, I'm firmly in the realist camp, in that regard. However, I do not hold that predictions about what will happen can be true/false at the time of utterance, and someone somewhere, once told me that that 'makes' me an antirealist.

Not that I really care about those names. By my lights, far too much time is spent regurgitating such things rather than just making whatever argument needs to be made. Phorrest, for example has his thinking steeped in such. While those names may be useful identifying some conventional position, they are rather useless for understanding someone who has a view stitched together from various different people from various different schools of thought...

"How do you know?" is a fine question to ask.

Do you find that there is a single universal answer(outline or some such) to everything that we know?

According to Moore, in the first case there's a mistake. In the second case, there is no mistake. — Ciceronianus the White

Well, Moore is dead wrong. He offers an example of one being mistaken and another pointing that out, while it's happening, and then goes on to ask why one cannot say the same things about themselves, which is to ask why someone cannot point out their own mistake while it's happening.

That is exactly what "It's raining, but I do not believe it's raining" is doing(would be doing anyway) when one is pointing out their own mistakes from afar, like another.

Aside from this, I think that you and I are largely on the same page. The statements about the weather and my belief are true(if it's raining but I do not believe it) when spoken by another, but they are self-contradictory whenever they are spoken by me(the mistaken one).

Self contradictory statements are not true, cannot be true. They are meaningful. They must be. Contradictory statements cannot both be believed at the same time. They can be reported upon, shown as such, but they cannot both be believed at the same time. In order to report upon our own lack of true belief about the weather like another does, we must point out the mismatch between what's going on, and the fact that we are oblivious to what's going on; those facts/events/happenings/ongoings/etc.

If we are oblivious, and we certainly are during such times, then we cannot report upon that because there's no difference, in our own minds, between what's going on and what we believe about that. That's why they cannot both be believed.




When viewing a visual recording of ourselves being unexpectedly surprised by rainfall, we'll watch what others did at the time it actually happened. We'll watch ourselves walk right past the coat closet. Yep. We did not believe that it was raining outside. That's where we keep our umbrella.

Hanging on a hook securely attached to the outside of the sidewall. We walked right past. From our vantage point, we can know with utmost certainty that we did not believe it was raining outside.

The difference between the two accounts of our own mistakes, one being reported by another, and the self-reporting, is that another could inform us of the weather outside ensuring that we grabbed our umbrella thereby successfully avoiding unexpected rainfall.

But we cannot convince ourselves to grab the umbrella out of the coat closet on the way out the front door. That is true regarding both timeframes, now and then! It's also true at each and every individual point in time in between...

I was thinking more along the lines of what one would say if they knowingly believed a falsehood, which of course cannot happen.

There's a common denominator between Moore's paradox and the liar. Do you see it too?

I was thinking more long term. For Trump the narcissist, , power is unimportant; what counts is being the centre of attention. Power was a means to that end, found by cunning rather than strategy.

But there will be those watching who aim for power, and can form strategy. — Banno

Well, Trump has certainly shown some gaping holes and fundamental flaws in the American system.

My pessimism has me thinking a move to the right is the more likely outcome. Along with it, a further rejection of scientific advice and rational discourse. — Banno

Short term? Current administration? Sure. Certainly there will be no admission of wrong doing and/or being mistaken by those people.

Armed militia would worry me. — apokrisis

Those have been around for a long time as well. What worries me about them is that the president has recently been using federal officers that do not have clearly marked uniforms. One reason for law enforcement officers to have them is so they can be easily identified.

However, if the public gets used to federal agents that do not have clearly marked uniforms, and those camo patterns are readily available for public consumption, then what's stopping some armed militia group from impersonating federal agents, or from being mistaken as such?

How would anyone know the difference?

In the interview with George Friedman I cited earlier, he makes the claim that the myth of the individual is comparatively recent, coming into it's own after Nixon as part of the neoconservative economic reforms of the following twenty years.

If that's the case then perhaps these myths are not as fixed as it might seem. Will the failure of the myth of individualism see the rise of a more communally oriented United States? — Banno

I hope so, but until enough influential people start thinking, talking, and acting in(on) such terms, the masses will not follow.

That's the mindset that is common, as you've hinted at, that is a part of the unraveling. The overvalued notions of individual freedom and liberty at the expense of the community.
— creativesoul

That’s the bind. If you aren’t free to be unaffected by things then you aren’t really free. But there is no point to freedom unless it is so as to be able make choices in forming your communities - your social interest groups. — apokrisis

Ah, the fantasy of unfettered freedom. A myth, at best. A weapon to be used against others, at worst. No one on the face of this earth is unaffected by things.

To the second point, you've summarized the general idea underwriting the laws(now defunct) that forbade black people from buying property in some community or another because they wanted to exercise their freedom to choose their own community members. — creativesoul

You are being terribly literal. But yes. Liberal democracy would mean being free to fight for such arrangements and free to contest such arrangements. — apokrisis

That already happened.

It would help if you actually read what I say. What I said was that two cohesive interest groups are emerging via a dialectical confrontation. — apokrisis

That is not what you 'said'. Even if it were, it's wrong anyway. Woke people are emerging. Rednecks have been with us for a very long time. Anyway, seems you've nothing much to offer that's of any interest to me. I'm not in the mood for pin the tail on the insincere and/or self-contradictory speaker.

Come back when you've decided that it's safe to believe what you say. I'm all ears then.

Be well.

What could hold it back is that while it is a highly creative nation in terms tech and economics, it seems very poor at rewriting its political institutions to fit the times. The constitution and federation of states locks it into the past. The political sphere has long been captured by billionaires, industry lobbies and elite interest groups. — apokrisis

That's part of the unraveling.... and a big one.

If you aren’t free to be unaffected by things then you aren’t really free. But there is no point to freedom unless it is so as to be able make choices in forming your communities - your social interest groups. — apokrisis

Ah, the fantasy of unfettered freedom. A myth, at best. A weapon to be used against others, at worst. No one on the face of this earth is unaffected by things.

To the second point, you've summarized the general idea underwriting the laws(now defunct) that forbade black people from buying property in some community or another because they wanted to exercise their freedom to choose their own community members.

Isn’t the US unravelling in the sense that two opposed interest groups are forming more strongly - the woke against the rednecks? — apokrisis

This is much too broad a brushstroke.

No.

To quite the contrary, I think that that is the opposite of unraveling. It's creating a much more cohesive understanding of racial relations in the states. It would be unraveling, perhaps, to someone with racist beliefs and/or tendencies who saw and/or interpreted these changes as things falling apart at the seams. However, it looks - to me anyway - much more like the stitching together of different American lives into the fabric of community, understanding, and caring...

There are many people in the US who have a lack of knowledge about the history of the country as it pertains to how minorities have been treated, particularly blacks. Due to the easy access to these stories and this information, many people have become aware of the facts, and as a result have altered their opinions accordingly. When one actually integrates knowledge of the history into their own worldview, they cannot help but to have an increased understanding of the plight of black Americans.

Assuming they care...

And aren’t both of these something like coercive tyrannies if you don’t particularly care to get involved with them?

I have no idea whether or not we're talking about the same individuals.

When it comes to the pandemic response, What strikes the outsider about the US is its social confusion. — apokrisis

Indeed.

Freedom to believe that it's all a hoax, or it's not as bad as they make it out to be. Freedom to believe whatever one wants, and for that freedom to continue to be unfettered, unabated, and/or otherwise completely unaffected by things like facts.

Freedom to place other lives at risk by running stop signs, drinking and driving, and/or refusing to wear a mask in public.

Another part of the unraveling is the sheer amount of falsehood and/or ridiculous conspiracy theories being perpetuated by the president and his close supporters/followers about this virus(amongst many other things). What this country needs right now, as much as ever, is a clear set of shared true belief about the situation at hand and leaders who care about the lives and livelihoods of those over whom they wield such tremendous power.

That's the mindset that is common, as you've hinted at, that is a part of the unraveling. The overvalued notions of individual freedom and liberty at the expense of the community.
— creativesoul

Allow me a loud AMEN! Especially for that last sentence. — Frank Apisa

Yeah. I was very disturbed when I saw and heard people beginning to speak as if doing what's necessary for containing Covid19 was somehow infringing upon personal liberty and freedom. That narrative began several months back along with sewing the seeds of doubt about the actual severity of the pandemic. This was also accompanied by efforts to discredit anyone who attempted to rightly inform the public about the dangers of Covid19.

This continues to this day.

It's all about enshrining narratives. It is ironic that the sacrifices and community-oriented nature of WWII are seen as patriotic, yet by some of the same people, will not be applied in any other realm of time, space, and governance. It is also interesting how the idealized post-war years of the late 40s-70s were run by mainly moderate to liberal policies with upwards of 90% tax rate for wealthy.

Thus the narratives of sacrifice and community are only revered when crystallized in nostalgic times and never to be actually implemented in the present. The narrative of individualism at all costs for government-mandated community action reigns supreme at all times for some folks. Why then and not now? People need to have something to rebel against? Even if it is themselves and their fellow citizens they are rebelling against in the bigger picture? Narrative of individualism and falsely associating it with a form of "freedom" is too ingrained for many people. — schopenhauer1

Indeed.

A representative form of government acts on behalf on what's in the best interest of all it's citizens, each and every time it can do so. That is what makes it a representative form of government. The US is exactly such a system, or at least it is supposed to be. It is in the best interest of all Americans(and the world for that matter) for us to do whatever we can do as a means to contain Covid19 in such a way that most minimizes the harm to all Americans(and by extension non Americans alike). We are not doing that. We are more than capable of doing so. The question is why not? Look to what's needed...

Putting our everyday normal lives on hold is necessary. Wearing masks in public(when we must go out into public) is necessary. Practicing social distancing is necessary(when we must go out into public). Testing at a rate much higher than we currently are is necessary. Contact tracing and isolation is necessary. Ensuring that people do not suffer personal injury(health or financial) as a result of Covid19 is necessary. For many, perhaps most, this course of necessary action would mean no longer having a steady source of personal income. For others, the negative financial aspect is inconsequential, for they've more than enough to survive a few months without a steady stream of new income.

There is nothing stopping the US government from exercising it's power to contain Covid19, except where and/or how to adequately fund the much needed process briefly outlined above. From where do we get the funds to do all this? It is expensive after-all.

From those who have it to spare.

The problem, of course, is that those who have it are either in control of those tasked with the responsibility of writing and enacting public policy on behalf of all Americans, or are those who write and enact the laws. Those who could fix the problems either do not know how, or do not care enough about the citizens they're supposed to be acting on behalf of.

Neither is acceptable. The latter, sadly enough, would be a better situation.

Press pause. Defer all debt. Contain the virus. Get back to normal.

Restore some much needed trust in the American government.

I’m indifferent to the degree it doesn’t impact on my freedoms. That is the “personal” answer anyone would give who is unable to talk about a wider view. — apokrisis

The health and safety of all Americans is not at all a concern so long as it does not impact on your(one's own) personal freedoms?

That's the mindset that is common, as you've hinted at, that is a part of the unraveling. The overvalued notions of individual freedom and liberty at the expense of the community.

Free will starts when one realizes that the will is not free from influence, and so begins choosing the influences as wisely as one can...

It speaks to the OP in so many more ways than are obvious at first blush. This pandemic and it's effects/affects, are symptoms of much deeper problems with the US... as is Trump. Symptoms of the unraveling...

Not sure how to take the "pettifogger" comment.

Talk of existing and/or existence is fraught, perhaps?

What about you... personally? Set the unquenchable thirst for explanatory power aside...

Answer the question.

That's seems closer to what I'm arguing. How do you arrive at Santa does not exist from that?

Why so much resistance?

Anyone who knows how to use the English language, particularly those who know what a representative form of government is supposed to do, already knows the answer to that question.

I just thought the aspect of change was interesting.

It seemed common sense to me. Something that does not exist cannot change. You've simply taken the opposing view that something that does not exist can change.

We are both faced with explaining what that change amounts to and/or consists in. As a result, it seems to me that Santa exists, as a character in a story, and stories change...

For you however... I'm left wondering.

Domains of discourse...

Could you explain how invoking them helps out?

Can't ask Santa a question. He is a character in a story.

So, things that do not exist change by virtue of doing things with other things that do not exist?

Not following...

How does something that does not exist... change?

I replied that the US likes to say the government should keep its nose out of people's business.. — apokrisis

I did not ask what "the US likes to say". I asked if the American government should do everything it possibly can to minimize the harm caused to Americans.

It's more about domains of discourse. Look to the contexts. — Banno

Domains of discourse?

Care to flesh it out a bit?

Do they exist?

Does the story exist? If the story exists, and Santa is a part of that story, then...

Help me out here.

How does something that does not exist... change?

Is that a modus tollens?

So things that do not exist drive helicopters?

That which does not exist cannot change.
— creativesoul

That's not so. — Banno

Elaborate?

No takers?

Surely someone here would argue that Santa Claus does not exist.

The US population could just refuse to go to work, to socially distance, to wear masks and wash their hands. — apokrisis

I asked if the American government should do everything it possibly can to minimize the harm caused to Americans.

Do you think the American government ought to do everything in it's power in order to prevent as much harm to Americans(by extension non-Americans alike), as is actually possible?
— creativesoul

Tough question because maybe there just aren’t no right answers and any view would be context-dependent. — apokrisis

Forests and trees...

All views share the very same context. We are all in the forrest of a representative government in which the elected officials(are supposed to) act on behalf of American citizens. That is(supposed to be) the sole driving influence of decision/policy making.

The dichotomy or 'choice' between the keeping the economy going(preventing economic collapse) and personal safety/health is a false one. The economy need not crash in order to ensure the least amount of harm. People need not lose everything. People need not place their own lives at serious risk just to be able to survive.

The economy need not collapse at all.

We can, in simple terms, hit the pause button until we're better prepared. There is more than enough money available to keep everyone safe in relative isolation, through no cost of their own until the virus is contained and we are well enough prepared to keep it that way.

All those with such power have taken a vacation until after Labor Day... The irony. The shamelessness. The harm being caused to Americans who are supposed to have a government that is acting in their best interest...

I'm curious... after reading the earlier posts...

Given all we know about the current pandemic...

Do you think the American government ought to do everything in it's power in order to prevent as much harm to Americans(by extension non-Americans alike), as is actually possible?

...Here are two answers to the question, 'Does Santa fly around the world in a helicopter delivering toys on Christmas Eve?':

(1) No, it's a sleigh pulled by eight (sometimes nine) magic reindeer who can fly;
(2) No, because Santa Claus doesn't exist, so he doesn't fly in anything.

Both are defensible answers, and which is preferred depends on circumstances. — Srap Tasmaner

This is worthy of it's own thread.

Each and every time one is mistaken - and those situations are innumerable - there are most certainly at least a few true statements about the scenario, that that particular individual cannot say about themselves without sounding absurd, despite the fact that others can say without issue. That is the scenario put forth by Moore.
— creativesoul

There's no mistake, not really — Ciceronianus the White

There most certainly is in Moore's scenario. One is mistaken about the weather. Another points it out. Moore wonders why one cannot say the same things about themselves. That's what I've been talking about... with the last few posts in particular.

Your first and last paragraph are in direct conflict with one another.

Pointing out that another is mistaken is a comparison between the way things were, are, or will be and another's false, contradictory, and/or otherwise problematic belief(s) about that. We cannot knowingly hold false beliefs. Pointing out one's own mistake(in present tense while making it) would require that.

That's the issue in a nutshell.