NOS, he was just an inept leader.
— ssu
Who tried to kill the United States of America. — tim wood

Here's a thought: Instate Trump as the rightful POTUS, under the condition that he tells people to get vaccinated. Ha!

In particular, I am looking for an argument as to why anyone should feel compelled to accept classical logical (or minor variations) as somehow more useful as a heuristic than any other logic. — Ennui Elucidator

Indeed, why not make Eristische Dialektik our Bible?

My inclination is to say simply that we can choose whatever logic suits our purpose. DO you thin this somehow incompatible with realism? — Banno

Trump and Trumpistas are realists then?

There is no free lunch. Some problems are simply unsolvable—but must be dealt with. — Leghorn

How?

I don't seem to have trouble, out in the real world, I don't find even my worst critics have so totally misinterpreted the things I say as to make them appear almost opposite on any given issues. And then there's here... — Isaac

There's that saying -- "People of substance don't post much on internet forums."
I agree with this, and its obviously ironic implication.

In face to face interactions, people tend to consider the tone to be more important than the actual words, and it's the tone they actually respond to, not the words. Then they take this communication habit online, except that now, since the tone is obviously missing, they fill it in on their own, based on their own prejudices and biases. This can explain the frequent misinterpretations and misrepresentations.

Another factor is that when people communicate online, they often communicate from the privacy of their homes, their bedrooms, sometimes, dressed in their pajamas (or not even that). This is akin to allowing (hostile) strangers into one's privacy and vulnerability. This is bound to have important psychological implications for communication, among other things.

Online communication would probably look quite different if everyone would post from their offices, fully dressed and presentable, with laced shoes.

Good for you!

Why must we view scientistic capitalist apparatchiks as the ideal of humanity?

Sure, you can massage the terms to make them synonymous, but what have you really achieved by doing that other than establishing an eccentric usage of terms? — Janus

It's not uncommon that we develop a theory (based on some evidence) and then this theory allows us to see (further) evidence that supports it. It's why we have sayings like "Hindsight is 20/20".

The history of science shows that it may be rational to be wrong, yet not irrational to be right. In a letter to Mersenne, Descartes raised the question whether ‘a stone thrown from a sling, the bullet from a musket or the arrow from an arbalist have greater speed and force in the midst of their flight than in the beginning’, suggesting that this is indeed the ’vulgar belief’ but adding that he had reasons for thinking differently. Clearly, in 1630 the vulgar belief was rational. In the case of a man or a carriage, nobody would contest that the greatest speed is achieved some time after the beginning of the movement, and there was every reason to conceive of the movement of a projectile in the same way. It took the genius of Descartes to reconceptualize movement as a state rather than as a process. One should not say, however, that the belief at which Descartes arrived by his astounding mental leap was irrational, since his theory, as it were, enabled one to perceive the evidence that supported it. The vulgar theory was rational in view of the facts known to it, that of Descartes by virtue of the novel facts it enabled him to establish. I am making the banal point that the relation between belief and observation is a two-way one, rather than the one-directional inductive process suggested by such phrases as ‘the most rational belief given the available evidence’.

From Jon Elster, Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality

That is an extremely vulgar remark. This is a philosophy forum, it might do you some good to read some more about the subject before launching ad hominems. Objective idealism is a perfectly sound and sane philosophical outlook, even though it is a minority view. — Wayfarer

Ooops, that hit a nerve.

I myself am actually in favor of idealism, my view is much in line with the Buddha's on this. But I am also painfully aware how alienating this view is, how counterproductive to fitting in in society. A person committed to exploring idealist views has a lot to contend with, going against the flow of society. Sadly, this can sometimes end very badly for them.

In the US you can sue for wrongful termination. — frank

Which is extremely difficult to prove, and even if the person wins the case in court, their career in the industry, or altogether, is probably over. Employers know that. Employers don't like potential employees with a track record of suing their employers.

The legal option of a wrongful termination lawsuit is a false hope.

The aim or purpose of looking for such a formulation being what?
— baker

Understanding. — Banno

To what end?

Merely to satisfy curiosity?

If we start from the position that humans act purposefully, oriented toward a goal, then understanding is merely a means to an end, not the end itself.

(People possibly do philosophy for the purpose of relieving that specific inner tension that they feel. So, philosophy as a means to find inner peace etc.)

Typical non-answer. — 180 Proof

That should be read, obviously, as "In my opinion there can be no final solution to the problem of suffering". So, as I have said, if Buddha says there can be a final solution to suffering then I disagree with him. If you agree with what you have imputed to Buddha and think there can be a final solution to the problem of suffering, a solution that would completely end all suffering for all time, a solution other than the total extinction of the world (which could not be effected anyway), then what do you think that solution could be? — Janus

/.../ How, then, could the Buddha not have believed in reincarnation, and how can one accept reincarnation to be true without believing in the incorporeal self, aka "the soul"? — Michael Zwingli

Start new threads, as the above is off-topic here. See you there.

If only our phones could text and call without the internet. — Michael

But then one would have to communicate with real people!

Property rights allow a business to fire people who aren't vaccinated. If Baker comes from a very socialist country, there might be more restrictions on firing people. — frank

No, the issue is the exact wording of the termination, not the actual reason for the termination.

The wording has to be in accordance with the law for the termination to be legal.

The actual reason for the termination can be whatever the employer wants it to be, even if it is illegal.

Interesting way of communicating from someone who feels entitled to give others lectures about the importance of communicating well. Doesn't mean the advice is wrong, of course -- it just means you're a complete hypocrite. — Xtrix

I can't say that I'm not glad to see that scientism and capitalism are digging their own grave. Granted, at an enormous cost to human life and to the planet, but still, a grave.

Interesting to be such an advocate for one group while entirely ignoring another, larger group with far higher rates of fatality. — Xtrix

You should know better.

There is less fault with the anti-vaccers, becuse their stance is a reaction, a revolt against the normalization of scientism, against capitalist exploitation, against being ruled by aged adolescents with advanced degrees.

Every day, I turn on the news and I see people in their 40's, 50's, 60's and older, high politicians, people with advanced degrees, money, and political power who have the emotional maturity of adolescents and who are enforcing a culture of plebeian mediocrity upon everyone.

I haven't said I know better than the Buddha. — Janus

You said:

There is no "final" or complete solution to the problem of suffering. — Janus

The Buddha maintained that there is a final solution to the problem of suffering. So if you say that there is no "final" or complete solution to the problem of suffering, you are in direct opposition to the Buddha.

Of course all of this is, at least in regard to the sense in which I think the OP intended to question the idea of Realism, way off topic. Perhaps it should be moved to a thread of its own. — Janus

Indeed!

Meh. I sometimes go for days without even turning on the computer, I just don't have the time. I only recently got a smart phone, but I don't use it much. Those damn small letters and having to move the text in order to read it. Nah.

Imagine there's an internet blackout and noone is there to see it ...

Possibly, I'm mistaken; and you can prove this. Do tell o sage – what is "the cause of suffering" and how ought we "uproot" it? — 180 Proof

It's not a matter of ought. You're free to suffer.

I think the philosophical stance that is implicit in Buddhism is quite intelligible if studied diligently. — Wayfarer

Sure, and, as I said, it's a stance that is counterproductive for success in the world. People who think "it's all in their head" tend to end up in institutions with white padded cells.

Anyway, what prompted this detour into Buddhism is what Isaac said earlier:

/.../ I think a lot of the talk about realism and anti-realism gets stuck on this, but unhelpfully so. There's little point in getting hung up on that problem because it cannot be surmounted. The solution is to accept that state of affairs and move on. We're talking about the way things seem to us to be.

For some of us, things seem to be such that there's an external cause of our internal representations, something we cannot alter in real time (we can, of course, alter it after the perception, interact with it's construction - Joshs). I'd hazard a guess that for any who think there's not an external cause of our representation, the argument rests not on some way things seem to them to be, but rather on the above meta argument (that everything is ultimately some way things seem to us to be) and we should discard discussion of that meta argument as unhelpful.

So the issue really is in what things seem to have an external cause and why they seem that way. — Isaac

Distinguishing between subject and object, between the internal and the external is helpful for many purposes, notably, for successfully functioning in the socio-economic system.


Developing epistemological and ontological theories is a purposeful activity, and the purpose is more than just the ostensible "to get to the bottom of things, to figure out how things really are", but is purpose or goal oriented. In the case of the Buddha, the purpose was the complete cessation of suffering. For some others, it is power over other people. Etc.

Let's say that we in the UK abolish the monarchy. Does the Queen of England exist? Well, Elizabeth Windsor exists, but as there is no monarchy there is no Queen of England, and if there is no Queen of England then the Queen of England doesn't exist. — Michael

That's an equivocation then.

Indeed, and the solution may well be to stop playing that game by rejecting the division between object and subject. Look for a formulation that is not exclusively one or the other. — Banno

The aim or purpose of looking for such a formulation being what?

I may or may not have a different opinion than Gautama. What do you think? Do you know exactly what he thought? — Janus

For all practical intents and purposes, we agree that the Pali Canon is "the word of the Buddha".

I have read Buddhist works a fair bit. Works in Zen (Dogen, D T Suzuki, Shunryu Suzuki, Hui Hai, Kaplan (I think) Thich Nat Hanh, Tibetan Buddhist works by authors whose names I can't remember and I've read some of the sutras (the Diamond Sutra and the Heart Sutra are two I can remember the names of) I've read a little Vasubandhu, Nagarjuna and some early discourses of the Buddha, and lots of other stuff I can't remember the titles of. I'm familiar with the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path and the idea of interdependent origination and so on.

I'm not a Buddhist and my relationship with Buddhism is rather complicated. But when someone claims to know better than the Buddha (or better than the Pali Canon), this catches my attention and I am very curious as to whether the person can live up to their claim.

Obviously much of it is open to interpretation, and there are and have been many schools of Buddhism. I understand the idea of the truth of suffering, that it is caused by craving and attachment, the idea that suffering can be ended, and the proposed way of ending it.

The question is as to whether any of that is proposed as the way to end just individual suffering, or whether it is proposed as the way to the final end of all suffering. I have some sympathy for the former, as I think there is some truth in it, but the latter is an unattainable goal, unless you were to destroy the world entirely. To be born into this world is to be subject to inevitable suffering.

Your two paragraphs contradict eachother.

At least one of the causes of suffering caused by human attitudes and actions has been identified. What possible solution could there be to suffering caused by natural events? Do you really believe that the behavior of the natural world is going to change, or that humans could cause it to change?

Gautama suffered old age and death just as we all will. Do you really believe he felt no pain whatsoever? — Janus

You said you read all those Buddhist sources, but you still have those questions??

If we can achieve a good death and the ability to suffer pain and physical decline cheerfully, what more could we ask? — Janus

A.k.a. "The Third and a half noble truth: Suffering is manageable".
No, this is not part of the Buddha's teaching.

I do. If I don't "know better" than an Iron Age philosopher, given all that humanity has learned in the interim, then God help me. Old Siddhartha believed in the "soul" and in reincarnation (and most certainly in the pantheon of Hindu gods to one or another extent), both obvious fallacies, and the latter an obviously ridiculous fallacy, to a logical positivist like me. — Michael Zwingli

Oh, he believed those things? Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide some citations for your claim.

Either way, you've been given plenty of information by now, but oddly brush it off with a hand wave. Are you looking for something else altogether...? — jorndoe

I get the feeling that Baker is arguing for the sake of argument. But I see absolutely no substance to it— just the appearance of disagreement and contradiction. Other than “pro-vaxxers are mean in communicating and overly enthusiastic,” which is sometimes true, I see nothing. — Xtrix

I mean, really. What is wrong with you?!


Must you yourselves suffer strokes from the vaccine in order to even begin to have empathy for iatrogenic diseases?

You think people should be consoled by a reference to luck?!

My consolation is: some people are unlucky. — Xtrix

Now sit down and think long and heard about what "luck" means in terms of science.

Chance is the end of science. We do science in order to overcome chance.

Either way, you've been given plenty of information by now, but oddly brush it off with a hand wave. Are you looking for something else altogether...? — jorndoe

I get the feeling that Baker is arguing for the sake of argument. But I see absolutely no substance to it— just the appearance of disagreement and contradiction. Other than “pro-vaxxers are mean in communicating and overly enthusiastic,” which is sometimes true, I see nothing. — Xtrix

Oh for fuck's sake. Do you have plastic flowing in your veins or what?!

As long as vaccination is not actually legally mandatory, suspending or firing someone for not being vaccinated is illegal.
— baker
Citation, please. — tim wood

Read again. I'm stating a truism.

you offered roughly nothing, and called my comment shallow rhetoric?

I've already mentioned that the evidence is the ground authority. And we'd be fools not to learn from it. — jorndoe

And you still have nothing to offer to those damaged by the vaccines and their close ones.
All you can offer is the standard rhethoric of risk, luck, and large populations. This is shallow.

All the evidence in the world changes nothing for those damaged by the vaccines and other medical treatments.

Here, I posted a thread on this quite a while back, but it generated little interest: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10157/how-to-come-to-terms-with-being-an-expendable-cog-in-the-system

The larger organization operates in big numbers.
From its perspective, it's acceptable if a medical treatment has serious side-effects for a certain % of the population.
From its perspective, it's acceptable if a governmental measure during the pandemic leads to job loss for a certain % of the population.

For the larger organization, some losses are acceptable. It goes further: it expects that those who are that loss -- those who end up losing jobs in a pandemic because the government doesn't allow their industry to operate, or those who end up with permanent negative effects of a medical treatment -- nevertheless continue to trust the larger organization as if all was well.

So if you -- yes, you -- end up being the unfortunate one who lost their job because of the measures; if you end up being the one permanently paralyzed by the vaccine:

How do you still trust the government, the medical system?

How do you make sense of the damage that you yourself suffer, presumably for the wellbeing of others?

The government and the medical system expect you to view yourself as an expendable cog in the system. As such, how do you still trust them? — baker

The rest of your waffle are just excuses for more American fascism. — StreetlightX

It simply seems to be part of American culture to view things in white and black terms, in terms of competitive oppositions, us vs. them mentality, the Wild West, the relentless struggle for survival, for wealth.
American culture is, at its heart, plebeian culture.

An imposition of a Covid vaccine, shown to save lives and reduce both incidence and severity of an otherwise incurable and contagious sickness seems reasonable. — tim wood

That you are unable or unwilling to provide any semblance of consolation for those damaged by the covid vaccines shows your cold, hard heart.

So what's the big scandal in COVID, as seen by dissenters? — Olivier5

That mankind has allowed brute capitalism to be the norm of human relationships.

And thus anti-vaxxing is a taking from me for no good reason something that is mine. And that leaves no room for respect, nor is fair. — tim wood

If something can be taken from you, it was never yours to begin with.

Some people have no decency and they don't deserve to be treated decently. They are just assholes. — Olivier5

A gentleman is supposed to be different than ordinary people in some important way. Hence the word "gentleman".

But here you are, proposing that one should behave exactly the way ordinary people do.

You're more than old enough to cease playing socially approved games of keeping up appearances.

Like, maybe think about building a robust and accessible education system first before resorting to punitive measures? — StreetlightX

What would need to change is the perception of the value of education.

There has been a general worldwide trend to view education as a means to an end -- education as a means to be better able to get a well paying job.

It is not popular to view education as a mode of cultivation with the aim of being cultured, in the old-fashioned European sense of what it means to be cultivated, cultured.

Modern education systems basically aim to produce plebeians with advanced degrees.

You deny the Buddha? You know better than the Buddha?
— baker

I don't accept any man as a final authority on anything, Baker. If you do, that's your choice. — Janus

I asked you whether you knew better than than the Buddha. Do you?

At least one of the causes of suffering caused by human attitudes and actions has been identified. What possible solution could there be to suffering caused by natural events? Do you really believe that the behavior of the natural world is going to change, or that humans could cause it to change?

If you had read what the Buddha said, you'd have some ideas.

It's not about the stakes, it's about what is at stake.

I just don't understand gamblers.

If one is making the argument that there are people having strokes and dying because of the vaccine, and that this is a reason for not taking the vaccine, then how is this not simply risk-aversion? — Xtrix

I'm not making that argument, and it's not clear why people think I am.

It would be perfectly rational if the rates were higher -- but the chances are so low that to point to this as reason for rejecting it simply makes no sense, as we engage in activities all the time that have higher chances of death and disfigurement, like riding in cars and showering in a bathtub.

True, we don't usually have to "debate" those other activities. But we don't normally have to debate vaccines either -- not until very recently.

If someone decided suddenly to stop riding in cars, citing "accidents and death" as a reason not to, or in airplanes (like in the movie Rain Man), then besides listening, empathizing, and being compassionate to this person, how else would you try to persuade them that they're mistaken and that the activity they're unwilling to engage in is actually quite safe?

I wouldn't try to persuade them at all, it is not my place.

Most importantly, a person doesn't do something because it is "quite safe". The reason people do things is not because there would be a low risk involved. In fact, many things that people do are technically high risk (eating junk food, drunk driving, extreme sports etc.) or small probability of success (applying for a job, seeking love).

People do things because they consider them worthwhile, in line with their value system and such. Not because something would be a low risk or a high probability of success. Considerations of probability are, at best, a distraction.
You don't eat pork chops because you're sure that the risk of contracting a tapeworm would be low; you eat pork chops because you like to eat pork chops, and to hell with tapeworms.


The life that people will get after they get vaccinated will not be better; at best, it merely won't be worse than before. Getting vaccinated will not bring an added quality to one's life. At most and at best, it will merely retain the status quo. This is a weak selling point. Who's excited about the status quo? Barely anyone.


Further, you fail to offer a meaningful consolation for the prospect of vaccine damage and vaccine failure.

Note the question mark.

Simply pointing out that people quite merrily live by keeping two sets of books. Schizoid is the wrong word. Hypocritical may be closer. — Tom Storm

Quite merrily?

Well, as long as health and wealth last, one can do many things. But is keeping two sets of books a viable plan for happiness, regardless of external circumstances?