Because it is quite beautiful (anthropomorphic expression), but what words can we use to describe anything without being completely anthropomorphic? — uncanni

I wanted to re-approach this.

It's not fait accompli. It's not inevitable. It could be a necessary(unavoidable) foregone logical conclusion, but that assumes precisely what's in question, and thus needs adequately argued for. I'm strongly doubting - outright denying - that all human terminological description misattributes uniquely human characteristics to that which is not human.

Not all description is anthropomorphic.

I know of no way to avoid sounding pretentious should the reader chose such an interpretation, but I'm hopeful that this lands gently enough despite the risk...

You seem to be charging yourself with projecting humanity onto things not human. I wonder why?
I mean, I know it doesn't have to be that way, and based upon what you did say, I would strongly disagree. I'm suggesting that perhaps you're being a little too hard on yourself. If you think that anthropomorphism is inevitable, then I want to ask if you remember the source of that particular belief?

I mean, where did you get that idea? Seriously. I'm not being rhetorical at all here. Rather, I'm saying that that source gave you misleading ideas. Moreover, you most certainly do not have to keep on believing those things.


Calling the universe "beautiful" does not always count as being completely anthropomorphic. I mean, when the speaker knows that they are simply stating their own personal tastes, then they presumably would also know that that is not the same as saying that the universe is inherently, intrinsically, or otherwise beautiful in and of itself, independently of all human thought and belief. The former(knowing that statement's an expression of one's personal taste) is not a case of misattributing uniquely human characteristics to that which is not human. The latter(claiming that beauty - somehow - exists within beautiful things prior to all humans) does exactly that.

A more poetic rendering of the same sentiment could be:One who knows that beauty is always in the eye of the beholder ought also know that beauty cannot possibly be both, always in the eye of a beholder and exist prior to beholders.

:smile:

Gotta be some eyes around somewhere in order for anything to be in them. So, with all that in mind... We can believe that the universe is beautiful, without believing that beauty is inherent to things we call beautiful.

Knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so is crucial for mental health.

...what words can we use to describe anything without being completely anthropomorphic? — uncanni

Words based upon knowledge of all thought and belief, so as to be able to know which aspects of human thought and belief are unique to humans and which are not. Being anthropomorphic is not equivalent to being human. It's what's going on when we mistakenly attribute characteristics unique to humans to things other than humans.

Philosophy has been quite helpful in that arena.

You pointed me to a previous event, regarding a different person, from a previous investigation, in which no one was found guilty of the “illegal reasons” you allege. Do your false allegations rise to the level of sanity and sincerity you assume from others? — NOS4A2

Pointing you towards evidence you ask for says nothing else.

:wink:

Read the Mueller report. Watch the sworn testimony.

Some experience does not involve words. All characterizations thereof do. There are extremely important existential and elemental distinctions between a characterization of an experience and the experience being reported upon. All "what it's like" descriptions are existentially dependent upon words. Not all experience is.

To put it a bit simpler:There is experience prior to words. What that experience amounts to and/or consists of is what matters here, it seems to me.

If all stipulated characterization(what it's like) is a report, and that which is being reported upon is something that exists in it's entirety prior to words(to be a bat), then that report can most certainly be mistaken. Some experience(bat experience) is prior to words. When something is prior to words, it can be neither existentially dependent upon them nor consist of them. Any and all reports that stipulate otherwise are mistaken.

When it comes to what we say about the experience of a non linguistic creature, we can be mistaken, in exactly the same way that we can be wrong in what we say about that anything and everything that exists in it's entirety prior to our report of it.

We can be wrong about the elemental constituency thereof.

There is most certainly experience prior to words. There is most certainly experience that does not consist of words. There is most certainly experience that is not existentially dependent upon words.

What does all experience have in common such that having it is exactly what makes it an experience?

Not words, so not Quale.

Bats do not experience the brownness or smoothness or roundness of the table they are hanging beneath. Those terms are used - they are the means - for us to draw distinctions between kinds of colors, textures, and shapes. As such, they are an aspect of a comparison/contrast. Those are all existentially dependent upon language use. A recently awakened/disturbed bat hanging beneath a brown round table is having some sort of experience, no doubt, but brownness, smoothness, and roundness are not a part of that experience.

This is not an attempt to set out 'what it's like' to be a bat. There is no universally applicable minimalist criterion for "what it's like" to be anything. Rather, there's most certainly something that all experience has in common such that the combination thereof is adequate for rudimentary level experience. When we realize that the same 'set' of basic elemental constituents are present in each and every undeniable/obvious case of experience, we will have made progress setting out what all experience consists of.

That’s false. — NOS4A2

What is false? Which statement?

You're asking for something that's already been done. I'm assuming both sanity and sincerity in speech. So, I figure that you asked as a way to suggest that what you asked for would be good enough reason for you to believe that Trump has worked with a foreign entity for illegal reasons.

I gave you - or pointed you towards - exactly that.

There was no point. It was an answer. What's the point in asking for evidence of an illegal activity when there's already evidence for it? Do you not know this?

I know that. You're talking about current events. I'm pointing you towards solid evidence of the exact same thing in past.

Read the Mueller report.

...what would you call Sanders' political ascension? — Maw

A demonstrably wise, prudent, and admirable politician who has been nearly perfect throughout his time, sometimes when he was the only "nay". Someone who knows what the underlying problems are and is of outstanding moral character while informing people of those problems and how they arose.

I would call that "long overdue"...

:wink:

Point taken.

...you simply can't play politics as a morality game. — StreetlightX

What else could politics be if not doing what ought be done?

Show me a statement or policy or anything that references finding political dirt for the purposes of influencing an election, or anything to do with the next election and political dirt. If you find that the evidence of what he has been accused of will go from zero to one — NOS4A2

Trump's close relatives held a meeting with the explicit intent of doing just that.

Do you really believe that Trump knew nothing?

:meh:

...substance conceiving through itself is not a mode of substance. — creativesoul

Are you denying that “conceiving” or conception is a mode? — aRealidealist

No. I'm drawing a distinction between kinds of conception... as one must if they are to understand Spinoza.

Thanks. Have to look into that a bit further. I'll get back with you.

:smile:

Follow me?

What more could I ask?

Those answers do not - cannot - exhaust the following question:

What happened?

Which event?

:brow:

I suppose the questions are fine after we agree upon what happened.

No. The point is that substance conceiving through itself is not a mode of substance.

Great to see ya around here!

:wink:

I've missed ya.

...it can be a strategy for a dominant group, after ensuring a dominated group has been pushed to the bottom of society, to claim moral brownie points for doing nothing to right the wrong. — Baden

Exactly. If we never focus upon race, it's much easier to avoid directly addressing the accumulated advantages of systemic racism. Colour-blindness can be used as self-congratulatory rhetorical drivel.

Being sex/color blind is generally a good thing and a good thing for the privilledged to be. — Coben

As the problems of race come into view there are those who - for whatever reason - talk about 'colour-blindness' as if that does anything at all to help solve and/or resolve the historical problems of systemic racism in America.

For starters, it's nonsense. No one is color blind in the relevant sense. Everyone notices such things about others. It's how one uses that bit of knowledge that matters here.

...conception cannot be in itself... ...in as much as they’re modes, & therefore must exist in or through something other than itself (not in itself [according Spinoza’s own statements]). — aRealidealist

Substance is in itself and conceives through itself(according to Spinoza's own definitions).

Conception is a mode of substance.

There is no self-contradiction here.

III. By substance, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.

That's it. We could simplify it without loss.

Substance is conceived through itself.

So, it's wrong to say that a conception cannot be in itself according to Spinoza.

I'm saying that your charge of "by definition" does not follow from Spinoza's.

Duly noted.

The first problem (1) with Spinoza’s two definitions of “substance”, in relation to his overall philosophy, is the consideration that, by definition, a conception cannot itself be something, or that, which is in itself. — aRealidealist

Rubbish.

That's a problem with your definition, not Spinoza's. As I said earlier... you're just denying Spinoza's definitions. The problem here - of course - is that whether or not Spinoza is guilty of incoherence/self-contradiction is determined by his definitions... not yours. His is below.


III. By substance, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.

I. By that which is self-caused, I mean that of which the essence involves existence, or that of which the nature is only conceivable as existent.

II. A thing is called finite after its kind, when it can be limited by another thing of the same nature; for instance, a body is called finite because we always conceive another greater body. So, also, a thought is limited by another thought, but a body is not limited by thought, nor a thought by body.

III. By substance, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.

IV. By attribute, I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.

V. By mode, I mean the modifications of substance, or that which exists in, and is conceived through, something other than itself.

VI. By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite-that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.

Explanation—I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind: for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation.

VII. That thing is called free, which exists solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action is determined by itself alone. On the other hand, that thing is necessary, or rather constrained, which is determined by something external to itself to a fixed and definite method of existence or action.

VIII. By eternity, I mean existence itself, in so far as it is conceived necessarily to follow solely from the definition of that which is eternal.

Explanation—Existence of this kind is conceived as an eternal truth, like the essence of a thing, and, therefore, cannot be explained by means of continuance or time, though continuance may be conceived without a beginning or end.

The OP doesn't help. The contentious definitions are above. Can you make the case again, here and now? Which definitions are self-contradictory?

I'm just trying to figure out what on earth you mean by "incoherent".

Incoherence, though, can be judged in relation to the standard of rational/logical truth, such that any instance of it possesses rational/logical falsehood. — aRealidealist

Incoherence is judged solely and exclusively by self-contradiction. Coherent arguments are not self contradictory. Are you charging Spinoza with self-contradiction?

You don't seem to know what you're talking about. Are you charging Spinoza with incoherence?

I’m opposed to their truth, with strict reason or logic supporting my opposition. — aRealidealist

That's another matter altogether. The standard for being true is not the same as being incoherent. Which are you focusing on?

Invoking the term "semantics" is quibbling with words. Whether or not Spinoza is guilty of incoherence is nothing but semantics. To be clear... his.

The difference is a designer.

I’m challenging the internal or rational/logical self-consistency of Spinoza’s philosophy... — aRealidealist

In order to do this you must first accept the terms. You're attempting to deny them.

Atheism is crucial to all viewpoints using the terms God, no god, creator, no creator, etc. and vice-versa.

I'm agnostic about the origens of the universe. Atheism and Theism are both crucial to that as well.

t doesn’t sound like we disagree. — Pfhorrest

Maybe we agree. Not sure. "Redness" is rejected on my view.

...know what it’s like to experience color. — Pfhorrest

What's the difference between experiencing color and seeing/sensing/detecting/perceiving it?

Seems to me that we all see it by virtue of having what it takes to do so. However, there is no single correct answer to what it's like to experience it, because each person's experiences are different according to the content of their own thought. All experiences of red include drawing correlations between red and other things...

That's it as far as what it's like to experience red. To add detail fill in the variable blanks. Set out those other things. What you'll end up with does not even come close to being a standard of what it's like...

That holds good for all "what it's like" notions, which renders it useless as a measure of anything.

I appreciate the attempt to talk about the more important matters here.

I was just thinking about the oddity of Trump's behaviour and policies towards Ukraine and Russia. Adam Shiff basically called Trump a traitor without using the term. The behaviour he described fits the definition of treason.

Here's a question...

Are their any Trump actions, words, and/or policies that are clearly counter to Putin? There are plenty which could be construed and/or misconstrued as being directly out of the 'Putin playbook'.

Thought begins as simply as possible and grows in it's complexity. Knowledge is accrued. We all stand upon the shoulders of all the greats before us. Sometimes we still draw novel correlations between the things. To deny novel thought is to say that there had never been the first one.