Thanks. The follow up question deriving from the above is how close are Iran and Pakistan, and Russia must be watching from the sidelines but have no idea who they're rooting for?

Wallows quietly.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this matter & any relevant philosophy texts which could be of help working on this question. — Ellie For

Does research show it's comparable in efficacy as normal human eye to eye dialogue? Curious...

Ben Vilhauer — Amity

Wasn't that @Postmodern Beatnik, @Michael?

I know he taught at CUNY.

What is it about your tone and body language that is relevant to the point you're trying to make in any post, that doesn't get picked up by the reader? — Harry Hindu

That communication is more effective in person. I suppose that is the obvious conclusion here?

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+percentage+of+communication+is+nonverbal

Nice. I hope you're present if he decides to stop by.

You mean you want me to invite him? I was already going to do the rest. — Baden

Yes, as someone with qualifications and such you'd be a natural choice. As far as my role, I asked the questions that would be presented to Professor Pigliucci and am still waiting for feedback. I don't believe they are all ideal, such as #3 or the trite #4...

Baden, do you want to take over the reins here? As a teacher, you seem more competent on the issue of etiquette and stuff like that.

Jamalrob, gave me the go-ahead, so everything is nominal.

I think if not abolish then at least entertain what has been said by other folk 100x over? A newbie might get more out of a 5 minute read on Wikipedia for proofs for or against God than trying to derive the same concepts propounded x years/decades ago?

:cheer:

OK,

So, in another thread in a faraway land, it was postulated that the esteemed Professor, Massimo Pigliucci of CUNY, will be asked a prepared 3-4 questions, that is if he even agrees to make an appearance on this forum. However, given what I believe to be the Stoic ethos of unity through divine Logos, he would be more than happy to stop by and spend a day here.

I took it upon myself to present for discussion the following topics:

1. Why has Stoicism experienced such a revival as of late in the Western world? In your professional opinion, Professor Pigliucci is this due to our lifestyle, and if so, what has Stoicism to offer to better ourselves?

2. How would you differentiate between ancient Stoicism, Victorian Stoicism, and modern-day neo-Stoicism? How has the ethical field of Stoic thought evolved through time?

3. On a more general level, why do you subscribe to virtue ethics that is Stoicism rather than advocate consequentialism or deontological theories?

4. People have a hard time understanding the difference between Stoical apatheia and our modern use of the term is "apathy". How do you disambiguate the two from one another? — Wallows questionnaire.

@Ciceronianus the White, and other's what are your thoughts about these questions? If (any) seem too broad or imprecise, they are up for revision.

Thanks, and looking forward to reaching out to Professor Pigliucci on Facebook.

Oh, and given this rather pathetic thread of mine, I ask that someone assist me in moving this discussion over to Amity's thread about the details of the questions to be asked.

I just sent @jamalrob a polite message about the issue.

Ok, will work on it.

Unless you want to try to equate "ought" statements to some subset of "is" statements and then say we can do natural science to that, but then you need to philosophically justify that position still, so you're still doing philosophy, and you still might be wrong. (I think you would be, but I'm not here to preach my philosophy). — Pfhorrest

Yes, give us your reasoning for deriving an is from an ought here if you would.

Regards.

I voted close but with a caveat. I think some template should be produced of existing arguments for and against God. Like the ontological argument, or the problem of evil, etc.

Not a hard task given Wikipedia.

The old database is for sale? — boethius

Yes, upwards of 10k though.

You know what? I'm going to reach out to Massimo and ask him if he can answer a list of some 3-5 questions prepresented to him. He's very active on Facebook, and maybe he can make some time for us.

What do you think, @Amity? I can't fathom what kind of questions to ask though. I'll think about it...

So, I'll readdress the following:

But also, "just do natural science" doesn't even attempt to answer the last third of my set of questions, because the natural sciences are not in the business of prescribing at all, and so give no answers to questions about what prescriptions mean, how to judge them, etc. At best, saying "just do natural science" to that is merely saying they're meaningless and can't be judged, etc... which is just avoiding the question. — Pfhorrest

Prescriptions of what exactly? This strikes me as the same effort made by Frege and Russell in the Principia Mathematica, as to prove in some foundationalist sense the meaning of some proposition, when in fact the meaning cannot be determined by the very method or attempt at the proof.

Hmm. :blush:

Very interesting article. Here's my takeaway:

“Psychiatry sees individual patients, otherkin sees a community and a safe space. Where medicine has seen a syndrome to be explained, otherkin have seen affinities with no need for a unified metaphysical justification.”

I am an otherkin in that I have justified my bedridden tendencies and wallowing for something acceptable and normal in nature.

Both, if the map is accurate. If it isn't, then the map is irrelevant information, no? — Harry Hindu

If it gets you to the top of the mountain I'd say it's a good map.

Afaik, same shit.

What exactly is missing? I'm trying to get specifics here, so I'd appreciate a more specific answer. — Harry Hindu

Uhh, intentionality for starters???

That's what lying is. In order to lie, we'd already have to have some inclination into what the other person is thinking, or how they will interpret our words, in order to manipulate them into thinking something other than what is relevant to the facts. You can't lie to someone who already knows the facts. — Harry Hindu

No, that's just plain bullshitting. Lying requires one to know what the truth is and hide it from plain sight when engaging an interlocutor.

It's a stretch about Adolf, but I can see some parallels.

Here's the Overtone Window broken down.

I still think you Brits have it much better than what the US ideological nativism has produced thus far. Lots and lots of jingoism.

I'm not saying populists are especially concerned with economic or political theory - their yardstick is winning votes, but is it coincidence they're all right-of-centre? — Tim3003

Your Overtone Window has shifted significantly. I thought Third Way politics worked best for the UK, what happened?

Populism is also usually a facade for right-wing economic policies. — Tim3003

Please expand on this.

So, is this just a temporary phenomenon, to be overtaken by an (eventual) recovery from the 2008 crash? Or is future politics to be a constant battle of internationalist liberalism versus insular immigration-fear and xenophobia? — Tim3003

No, it's more like a snowball effect in that it feeds on itself. In my case, being an American, I feel as though irreparable damage has occurred through the current administration. Restoring faith in accountability and honesty are traits that are severely lacking in American politics.

My problem with Wittgenstein's account (at least as you tell it, corroborated by the bits of him I've seen elsewhere) is that even if the thesis of one's philosophy is "just do natural science", there is still philosophy to be done there: why do natural science and not anything else, what makes something natural science and not something else, how do you do natural science, etc. — Pfhorrest

Then you haven't read much from the pragmatists', have you?

And they say the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis ain't true... bullshit!

So I ask you, what percentage of information is lost when you write your posts and I read them? — Harry Hindu

A large degree. Though, we've had several interactions for me to determine that you're not a troll or insincere in your engagement on these topics. Yet, please use this as an example. Say, that I am some psychopath that is trying to get you confused because I get a kick out of making people feel bad. How do you know that I am or am not one? I suppose it would be harder for a psychopath to convince someone to die over the internet, despite the hot topic of bullying on places like Reddit or elsewhere.

The context provides a template of what can be relevant to the current discussion. — Harry Hindu

Yes; but, the context of what exactly, the map or the territory(?)

I shall set the roof on fire, the philosopher exclaimed!

So, ducks. Do they have to be stoical, cynical or tasty ? — Amity

If I am right about this, ducks or geese are the very few animals that can steal eggs from heterosexual partners and form bonds that if broken can actually lead to suicide in the animal kingdom. Rare, eh?

Underappreciated virtue ethicists of care, such as Nel Noddings (she will make a departure soon to the other world) or Carol Gilligan really make philosophy more than just a matter of commitment to cherished beliefs or dogma intertwined with word play.

This is where I see the future of philosophy gearing towards.

I want a feminist speaker to make an appearance for a change.

Yes, we do have a reputation system here. It's a secret though. Maybe Bean figured that one out.

Could have been our friendly god spelled backwards, ol @Bitter Crank.

Well, not a lot of people know that :gasp: — Amity

Heh, I'm a wallowing pig, @Banno is some combination of goat-chimp-man, and then we have @unenlightened who rather has the dual characteristic of being either a frog or a horse. It's a zoo in here!

Perhaps the OP is a but dry. So let's cut to the good bit:This article kills relativism. — Banno

How? By assuming again that everything is sharable about respective schemas? I expect Terrapin to chime in and assert something about interpretations of sorts; but, that would be irrelevant wouldn't it, Banno?

The cat shall be on the mat.

Do you believe in the MW interpretation of I may be so bold?