With all due respect - you and others are wrong. It's a matter of cause and effect that what is wrong cannot survive. The physiology and behaviour of organisms is crafted by evolution in relation to a causal reality. If the organism is not correct to reality it will die out as a matter of cause and effect. From this it follows that for human beings, there's a relationship between the validity of the knowledge bases of action, and the consequences of such action. Acting on the basis of overlapping religious, political and economic ideologies that do not describe the world as it really is - using science, but ignoring a scientific understanding of reality, we will necessarily become extinct. It's cause and effect. What is wrong cannot survive.

There's something very childish about this. — Banno

The question is one of purpose - of the meaning of life. I can not define an ultimate purpose for existence. I can show there's a truth relation between the organism and reality in evolution, necessary to survival - and on this basis I advocate acknowledging science as an understanding of reality and acting accordingly to secure a sustainable future.

I suspect it leads somewhere - that truth is the path to God, as it were, just as misuse of scientific truth spells the doom of humankind. But I don't know.

It might be travel to other stars, other dimensions, time travel, uploading our minds into machines and living forever. It might even be God; but whatever it is, if we survive our technological adolescence, if our species lives long enough, we will find it. — counterpunch

I fail to see what's childish about acknowledging what one can and cannot know.

Sure.

Altruism and egoism are human traits that far predate the appearance of capitalism and communism. — Pantagruel

But you weren't trying to justify altruism. What you said is:

I think the great challenge for each of us is to use what gifts we do possess for the collective good, — Pantagruel

Altruism and the collective good are not synonymous. That's merely the sheep's clothing with which the communist wolf hides its savage purpose. Dictatorship. Slavery. How are these good? How are these altruistic?

Capitalism and communism are systems of political economy. Reducing those to a distinction between selfishness and altruism is a caricature unworthy of a serious philosophical discussion.

There's a natural justice to the idea that a person owns themselves, and uses their talents and their capital to further their own interest - and an injustice to the idea they should be denied the opportunity to pursue their own interest for sake of someone else's idea of "the common good."

It's not merely a matter of economic freedom, but personal and political freedom allowed for by economics based in liberty. Collective ownership and a command economy does not allow for political opposition. The state owns everything, produces everything. The common good cannot be opposed. So communism not only deprives man of property, but his personal and political freedom. He becomes a factor of production. Individuality itself is inimical to the common good. So I ask you: what good?

Communism has failed every country that ever adopted it, and repeatedly committed genocide on a scale that makes Hitler look like a rank amateur - so if you advocate this system of political economy you really should be able to explain: what good?

It's not an age old question. Communism has failed. It came into the world around 1900 - basically just another form of slavery; committed several mass genocides and died on its arse in the 1990's.

I assume Paterson's comments refer to the contents of the book - "The Feminine Mystique" - presumably containing accounts of comfortably bored suburban housewives. I haven't read it.

Maybe you should ask Kenosha Kid, who, I agree, takes things out of context and puts his own spin on them:

As for the idea of equality between women and men, JP is not on board:

"it’s so whiny, it’s just enough to drive a modern person mad to listen to these suburban housewives from the late ’50s ensconced in their comfortable secure lives complaining about the fact that they’re bored because they don’t have enough opportunity. It’s like, Jesus get a hobby. For Christ’s sake." — Kenosha Kid

I don't know the context, who are "these" suburban housewives, — Judaka

Peterson is commenting on the book "The Feminine Mystique" by Betty Friedman.

Thanks for your comments. Some good stuff here. Sadly, I've lost interest in the subject. Or rather, my attempt to discuss something other than how to avoid the impending extinction of humankind - has proven unsuccessful. Sorry.

I think the great challenge for each of us is to use what gifts we do possess for the collective good, — Pantagruel

200 years of capitalism suggests otherwise. The repeated, and often genocidal failures of communism, suggests otherwise. Man tends his own garden best. In 1776, Adam Smith explained that the self interested actions of rational economic actors are coordinated "as if by an invisible hand" - not by some conscious intention to serve the common good.

I disagree with the assertion that the earth is over-populated. Rather, technology is misapplied. In fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Harness limitless clean energy from the core of the earth - we could capture carbon and bury it, desalinate water to irrigate land, produce hydrogen fuel, recycle everything, farm fish etc - and so support human population, at high levels of welfare, even while protecting forests and natural water sources from over exploitation. The climate and ecological crisis is not a matter of how many people there are, but rather, that we have applied the wrong technologies, because we use science as a tool of ideology, but ignore science as an understanding of reality in its own right.

That so, it is not merely reproduction that furthers the interests of the species, but also - knowing what's true. By knowing what's true and acting accordingly we could secure a sustainable, long term future for humankind in the universe - and after that, who knows? It might be travel to other stars, other dimensions, time travel, uploading our minds into machines and living forever. It might even be God; but whatever it is, if we survive our technological adolescence, if our species lives long enough, we will find it.

Science is true because it works, and it works because it's true. Simples!

I set out to know what's true, and have discovered something important to the survival of humankind. I'm trying to tell people about it. It's quite complicated, and requires a bit of attention to see. I am saying I have something important to say. What I'm not saying is that what I say is important. I'm saying that a scientific understanding of reality is important to the survival of humankind. I don't care about you - you're right. I care about the continued existence of humankind though. I care about securing a prosperous sustainable future without turning the world upside down. I can't be expected to communicate these ideas in terms - I'm supposed to imagine will make you entirely comfortable. You're right, I don't care if you're uncomfortable - because at present, you're doomed because you're wrong. You should be uncomfortable.

Depends on the definition of a country, of course. The EU is usually considered a federation of states, but not a federal state. It's also pretty much a statelike entity sui generis. With the introduction of a EU citizenship, the EU technically meets all the classical requirements of a state (territory, sovereignty, citizens). The sticking point is, however, whether the EU has genuine sovereignty or merely acts on behalf of the individual member states. — Echarmion

I agree with all of this - other than the dog latin! Using the term "sui generis" is entirely at odds with the "pretty much state like" part of that sentence. It's either unique - or it's alike. You're right however, that "the sticking point is, whether the EU has genuine sovereignty or merely acts on behalf of the individual member states."

The EU is not devolved. The direction is the opposite. Competencies are devolved to the EU by sovereign nation states, and as a consequence, the EU moves toward "ever closer union". Or does it?

Is being a country a consequence of the collection of enough of these competencies. Is a "de facto" country possible, or is there some X factor to the idea of country - that the EU lacks?

Relating this to the United States, there is significant discord between federal and state levels of government - in what would nonetheless, universally be considered a country.

You say the EU is not a country - why not?

It's a matter of being able to examine the belief - no more or less. Now I say that, I seem to recall some TV show, where they showed simple magic tricks to chimps. What I remember is the chimp's surprise that the ball was, or wasn't under the cup. One could argue the chimp had formed a "belief" about it, as demonstrated by their emotional response to discovering things were not as they had imagined. I'm not so familiar with cats that I could say, if they are capable of a similar expression of surprise - that betrays the existence of an expectation of a particular state of affairs, but I am familiar enough with cat owners to know, I cannot expect an objective opinion about their cat from them! Still, even if chimps are capable of beliefs - where does that get us? We cannot discuss with the chimp what it believed, or how it formed that belief, or in what terms it would express it. In terms of the question, "the content of belief is propositional" - we are no further along.

A hypothesis. — simeonz

Apology accepted, however, I think we need to stick with human, adult brains - capable of knowing what things are, and having beliefs about them, and articulating those beliefs. There's no insight to be gained, from the "beliefs" of babies, or the "beliefs" of cats - because they're not the same thing as an adult, human, articulated belief - with or without propositional content. If the purpose of this debate is to decide if the content of belief is propositional, how can we possibly examine that question in organisms incapable of articulating a belief? I'm really not sure what question you are answering.

What a fucking surprise. — Kenosha Kid

You, and your comments - are nasty and meaningless!

No, it's not. — creativesoul

Oh, yes it is!

I'm imagining one who is first learning how to use names such as "mouse" and "tree" to pick mice and trees out of the world to the exclusion of all else. — creativesoul

It's a little early for us to start thinking about children. We've only just met! Let's stick with adult brains, at least capable of knowing what objects are called, and having beliefs about them.

I read your opening essay and banno's before I commented on this subject. What did you read before you wrote it? Anything?

The problem with your essay is that you claim that the proposition is that 'the mouse ran behind the tree' - whereas, the proposition is always...

"I am right that..."

Imagine another person, stood closer to the tree. You say:

"The mouse ran behind the tree."

They say:

"No, it didn't."

Do you accept this as a fact, and change your belief as easily as you change your socks? No! Because what they are really saying is that you are wrong. You refuse to accept it, because propositionally, it's not about whether the mouse ran behind the tree. It's about whether you are right that the mouse ran behind the tree.

Well, okay then creativesoul - good talk. Maybe give my approach a little more thought and get back to me if you wish to discuss it. I "believe" it's right, and largely for the reasons you state:

The proposition is sometimes said to 'sit well' with the individual's other beliefs whenever there is no readily apparent disagreement between the proposition and the individual's worldview. — creativesoul

You said:

...they believe that that proposition is true. The proposition is sometimes said to 'sit well' with the individual's other beliefs whenever there is no readily apparent disagreement between the proposition and the individual's worldview. I've no argument against that much.

Now you say:

You described metacognition. That is thinking about one's own thought and belief. — creativesoul

These statements are contradictory. Which would you prefer to retract?

I explained why (I am right that) you're wrong.

I read both arguments and see it differently.

I suggest that belief is belief about the self.

"The mouse ran behind the tree" is really, an abbreviation for "I saw the mouse run behind the tree."

It is not the rightness of the proposition:

"The mouse ran behind the tree" to the world, but rather - the rightness of perception of the world by the self.

Consequently, the implied propositional content of belief is "I am right that...."

Further, we cannot put aside how we know that 'the cup is on the shelf' - for the content of belief is always belief about the self. The abbreviated "propositional" content reads "the cup is on the shelf" but in full is something more akin to:

(I am right that) the cup is on the shelf (because I remember emptying the dishwasher.)

or (I am right that) the mouse ran behind the tree (because my eyesight is not that bad)

Truth lies in the relationship between the organism and reality, and the propositional content of belief concerns the validity of that relationship.

The idea of a federal Europe has a long history. After WWII Winston Churchill expressed a desire to see a country called Europe, and the 1957 Treaty of Rome contains the intention of fostering 'ever closer union.'

Nonetheless, the UK has always been somewhat hostile to this end - such that brexit is welcome news to federalists in Europe. I myself, was a Remainer and a federalist. I just wonder, now - post brexit, if I'm still a federalist???

I've seen a few of Jordan Peterson's videos. He speaks very well, and I agree with much of what he says. But I have significant problems with his overall worldview.

For example, I maintain organisms evolved, and human beings in particular, were imbued with a moral sense by evolution in a tribal context, and that religion is an expression of the innate moral sense.

Peterson describes Christian religion as logos - that one can interpret as the moral discourse of Western civilisation. Okay, but, in Christianity, Christ is logos, and this relates in turn to John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Peterson claims that it is impossible to define values outside of this context, suggesting perhaps - he believes in God, and Christ, and that the logos he refers to is not merely the literary foundation of Western civilisation, but is actually a reference to the divine. When asked directly if he believes in God his answer was typically entertaining, but less than conclusive.

I maintain the basis of morality is evolutionary, and consequently, universal. Christian religion is the moral discourse of Western civilisation, and has enormous significance - no doubt. But religion is an expression of the innate moral sense, not the author of morality.

In short, I think Peterson has gotten hung up on reconciling the divine to his psychological, sociological, literary...etc, conception of reality - and consequently he fails to discover the deeper mechanics at play, the fundamental evolutionary basis of all morality, that is, the need of surviving organisms to be correct to a causal reality, or be rendered extinct.

UK and EU in row over bloc's diplomatic status.

By James Landale
Diplomatic correspondent

A diplomatic row has broken out between the UK and EU over the status of the bloc's ambassador in London.

The UK is refusing to give Joao Vale de Almeida the full diplomatic status that is granted to other ambassadors.

The Foreign Office is insisting he and his officials should not have the privileges and immunities afforded to diplomats under the Vienna Convention.

It is understood not to want to set a precedent by treating an international body in the same way as a nation state.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55742664

President Biden's inaugural speech was an appeal for unity in face of significant adversity, and that's all very well - but it might be viewed as an idealistic conditionality on his promises to deliver for the American people, such that one has to wonder if he isn't getting his excuses in early!!!

I've watched a good few inauguration speeches now, and at best they set a tone - one might reasonably hope is not entirely discordant with the tone of things to come! It was a good speech. I hope it's a good Presidency. I wish President Biden and America all the very best of luck!

We get the same thing. It's like they're advertising black people over here! I think I can get one on interest free credit! Did you notice a distinct uptick right after the BLM rioting. Suddenly, everyone in Britain was black - as far as advertisers were concerned. They are so pathetically hostage to political correctness, it's embarrassing.

I'm tempted, nay compelled to engage in the usual boiler plate denial of racism at this point, so I'm not going to. This is about how a Labour Party - built to represent the working class relative to the owners of the means of production, have become media luvvies, and gone into identity politics, and cut all ties with its working class roots - leaving us completely unrepresented.

Meanwhile, the right have privatised everything - sold off all the utilities, gas, electricity, water, trains, post office, everything, ended job security, raided pensions and imposed zero hours contracts on workers, all while rents are out of control expensive - and Labour are doing some anal audit on ethnic minority representation in the party, or some such. Don't ask me where all this is going. Those are the two options; in a conspiracy of different interests. Choose your poison.

The UK seems to have clearer class lines than the US, but what happened in the north of England has happened here too. The American labor movement didn't die from natural causes--it was murdered. Killed off by the same economic interests that shafted the coal workers where you grew up. It's a disgusting story of corporate and political powers combining to suppress the working class. In this country the Democrats and Republicans found common ground in class warfare (like a Democratic governor in my liberal state who sent in the National Guard to help break the Hormel meat packing strike 40 years ago). — Bitter Crank

I'm currently reading a book entitled 'Despised' By Paul Embry - about the relationship between Labour and the working class. It is somewhat different, because Labour were established 100 years ago to represent the working class relative to "the owners of the means of production" - and/or the aristocracy, but it's much same thing; they've abandoned the working class.

It's not that Labour have accepted the value of business though. It's weird. Labour monopolize public services and the media; but they've still switched sides. They court the well off with a bad conscience crowd - and make them ashamed to be white, regardless of the consequences for the working class majority. It's easy to be politically correct if you're insulted by wealth - and it's only on the bottom rung that it makes a crucial difference to have an 'ism' to swing a crust your way. They don't know or care. Champagne socialists.

I'd rather talk about energy. You're right that compressing hydrogen takes a lot of energy - but there's a lot of energy available. Thermodynamic efficiency of transmission and translation losses - to over use the jargon, would be a serious consideration if you were shovelling coal into a boiler - but, there's a lot of energy available from magma, and sending electricity down an overhead cable costs 10% per 1000km, more if the wire is buried, and more still if its undersea. Getting the energy from where it's produced to where it's needed by converting it into hydrogen, is in my view the most reasonable solution. Hydrogen can be used as a fuel burnt in traditional power stations, and hydrogen fuel cells, even a hydrogen internal combustion engine. When you think a little further on about transport solutions, distributing energy as hydrogen begins to make a lot of sense.

You're right about automation costing jobs, but consider the implications of having a virtually limitless amount of clean energy to spend. Did you know, for example - that as little as 2% of the UK is built upon. And UK population density is pretty high by global standards. There's lots of land that we cannot use, largely because of the availability of water. But what if we had energy to spend desalinating water to irrigate land? We could spread out - give value to what until now has been waste-ground, and in doing so, protect forests and natural water sources from over exploitation.

Think about how it changes our relationship to landfills. With such massive amounts of clean energy - we could recycle everything. Mince it all up and process it; bacterial digestion, heating, separation, chemical processing and so on. Given enough energy I think landfills would become gold mines, processed for their resources. There's plenty of potential industries, and economic opportunities that would spring out of nowhere, because resources are, fundamentally, a consequence of the energy available to create them.

Ultimately, there is no choice but to treat people as individuals.
— counterpunch

You spent too much time listening to Thatcher. — Banno

That was the first line of an argument that explains why it's necessary to treat people as individuals. You just took me to task for being dismissive of Willow - who is a lovely person, but seems to be expressing a sentimental truth, rather than a logical one - by stringing together some happy words in a fairly random order. (See the Sokal Affair.)

And the next words your, I'm guessing one finger - punches out on the keyboard, is "You spent too much time listening to Thatcher." And you call me trite?

I can quote passages from Hobbes Leviathan from memory. I've read Rawls - A Theory of Justice cover to cover. Don't judge me by your standards.

Why 'ought' it? The question is whether a man was killed. What does his skin colour matter?
— counterpunch

The question is, was he treated differently because he was black. — Banno

Oh, well then, yes, he most certainly was - but only after he was dead.

But you cannot address this issue unless you recognise that he was black. Hence, "His skin colour ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME!" is no more than your putting your hands over your ears and humming so as not to see what is before you. — Banno

No, it's not. Because if he were a white junkie criminal, who fought four police officers to prevent being put in a car, and was restrained - and died waiting for a van, I'd be saying exactly the same thing. I'd be saying he created the need to restrain him, and the benefit of the doubt is with the police. You are saying something different because of his skin colour. If you're saying his skin colour was an issue - what evidence do you have for that?

I am not able to respond to your post because it doesn't seem to answer my question, and is expressed in terms that are opaque, jargonistic and inexact.

It's racist or supremacist — TheWillowOfDarkness

Colourblindness?

because everyone else does the same, in their own conditions. — TheWillowOfDarkness

So all people from all countries are colourblind, and that's racist and supremacist?

This doesn't make sense.

I'm not going to try.

Sorry.

His skin colour ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME!
— counterpunch

It ought to be. — Banno

Why 'ought' it? The question is whether a man was killed. What does his skin colour matter?

That it isn't, should not be a source of pride; it is perhaps indicative of a lack of compassion, or of not being able to see things from the perspective of the other. — Banno

Ultimately, there is no choice but to treat people as individuals. I cannot understand what it is to be you, because I am me. I can only treat you with compassion as an individual - the same as any other individual; regardless of arbitrary factors like your skin colour, gender, sexuality etc. I owe you respect for your basic human rights - integrity of the person, property, freedom of conscience and speech. But that's about it. If I take into consideration arbitrary facts about you; and act in your favour on that basis, I am necessarily discriminating against someone else.

The reply form Willow was a courteous invitation to reconsider your position. Your reply was at best trite. — Banno

It's not trite at all. It's the crux of the matter. She says:

"Race" is a proxy for the material conditions and signifcance of a body. — TheWillowOfDarkness

So what about my race?

You pretend to the privilege of ignoring skin colour, only since that serves your rhetorical need. You didn't address her comments with a degree of seriousness. — Banno

I didn't seem to - no. To the untrained eye - my comments might have seemed somewhat rude and dismissive of what is probably a very kind and well intentioned person. But let's cut through the maudlin sentiment to start with. These are serious matters with vast consequences for a great many people. Nice isn't enough.

...you might learn to make better posts... — Banno

You think being insulted will teach me to make better posts? That's a bit vague. What do you mean by better?

...you might learn to phrase your views with a bit more dignity... — Banno

You're a subjectivist. So you should consider any such concept a matter of subjective interpretation. Do you imagine I think my posts undignified? Because, quite the contrary. I believe my argument an eloquent appeal for dignity that political correctness lacks.

...you might learn to fit in with the ethos of the forum rather than seeking to be banned. — Banno

Fit in? Sorry. I'm a philosopher. Fit in - is not what philosophers do. I'm not seeking to be banned. You're seeking to get me banned, because I have challenged your ideas. That's because you're not a philosopher. You're a left wing ideologue. There are lots of places for you to express your ideas on the internet. Try twitter or reddit, which explicitly support the neo marxist politically correct organisation BLM, and won't hear a word of criticism.

It's you who have failed to deal with the comments here. You are replying to the least interesting comments, encouraging the responses you find so upsetting. — Banno

I have tried to respond to all the comments directed at me. What did I miss?

Don't come into a forum such as this claiming to have all the answers; demonstrably you do not. Rather, you are serving as a textbook case of Dunning–Kruger; — Banno

Is that so? I have a degree that differs - but let us assume you're right. If I am so stupid I'm incapable of recognising the existence of thought of a superior quality to my own, how does insulting me help? All I'm getting now is, more insults - and more threats. Your post are poor quality, they lack dignity, you don't recognize the pearls of wisdom we have cast at your feet because you're so stupid, fit in or else!

Yeah....no!

Okay, let's go with that. I don't know what I'm talking about. You know better. Then why not explain it? This is a philosophy forum after all. What can I learn from being insulted and provoked? What can I learn from this:

You seem to make the same vile, bullshit statements over and over, and yet seem surprised by the uniformity of the response. No one wants you to volunteer this inhumane crap. You can be a secret racist iyl. But if you insist on being an overt one, you're going to be called on it, and you're going to be despised by a lot of people. — Kenosha Kid

or this:

I don't discuss or debate with "western" supremacists. — Baden

or:

Your martyrdom will be a lesson to us all... — Banno

What I'm getting is... shut up or else! And to me, that demonstrates precisely the quality of left wing thought. It's not able to deal with anything, so it's shut up, and look the other way, and sweep it under the rug - and then pat yourself on the back for what a good little dogmatist you are. Let none disturb your slumber - or else! It's pathetic.

Your martyrdom will be a lesson to us all... — Banno

Right, because on a philosophy forum - who might imagine one could discuss ideas freely, without fear of being insulted, provoked and banned. If that's the kind of forum you want, maybe you should change the name!

Supremacist is your term - not mine. Accused of being a white supremacist I said I'm pro-western. I'm proud of western civilisation. Its contributions to the world are vast. It isn't about race. As I explained, it's largely about the weather, and the proximity of European nations in competition that drove us to achieve so much. We got a lot right. So what about any of that is racist, or supremacist? Am I not allowed to be proud of my history?

You may outnumber me, and be more abusive, and have the power of the moderators on your side - to get away with what I can't, but I'm still the only one making any sense. I'm blowing holes in your beloved lefty dogma - and all you can do about it is insult me. Try defending your position like a philosopher, and stop weeping about your sorely spanked arse!

Where?

The "colourblind" approach is racist. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Is it?

So you're a racist then?

So why can't I, also - be a racist?

Is it because I is white?

Are you saying that black people can pursue their interests based on their race, but white people can't? How do you justify that?

I'm not the one claiming Floyd was killed, and/or murdered - ahead of a verdict. I'm demonstrating the mistake you are making prejudging the case; and more significantly, feeding those prejudices into the collective subconscious via political correctness hostages in the media, subliminally, by using terms like killing and murder, rather than the more neutral, but still entirely accurate term - death.