I suspect that part of it has to do with dwindling economic conditions for the vast majority of the population.

Instead of looking for the actual culprits, say, the billionaire class, a significant portion of the political class, and massive multi-national corporations, these politicians do what they've always done, they demonize minorities, vulnerable people and so on.

It's easy to do because you rarely see billionaires in real life, nor are you invited to board meetings in Goldman Sachs or are invited to Davos. But gay people, indigenous people, poor people - those you see every day. "They are responsible for your problems, not us."

And then there are other factors too, nationalism, religion, tribalism, etc., and you have a recipe for a disaster.

That's what I make of it anyway.

I've read that the attempted coup in Brazil was considerably larger than the one in the US, and also that the Brazilian Supreme Court was also targeted.

This may provida Lula an opportunity to reform certain police practices as well as getting some of the moderate Bolsonaro voters (if there are any) to denounce violence and this distance themselves from him.

This plague of right-wingers is very scary. They're still a problem even out of office.

Thanks, will do.

Yes, I should've added that that's what I found interesting in my reading of the Critique. But the point you mention is quite true and shouldn't require much by way of convincing, to think otherwise.

It took me a good 4 to 5 months to read the Critique, and mind you, I've read a decent amount of secondary literature. I won't deny that Kant has some very interesting theoretical observations, particularly concerning the relationship between things-in-themselves and experienced reality.

But I got more from the secondary literature honestly. I will go at it again - this time only reading version B, or however it is called.

You might get more (I know I did, on the whole) reading his Prolegomena, which is considerably clearer than the Critique. But, ymmv.

And your observations do? Given that all Ukrainians share the same motivation?

Because surely they all want to die to defeat the Russians.

You're speaking about pieces on a board game from me? Who are the ones giving Ukrainians arms with no echo of a though given about what the costs are nor who dies?

You think these "friends" of Ukraine give a flying f**k about them?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/26/us-has-big-new-goal-ukraine-weaken-russia/

I repeat, it is nice to see how so many people care about Ukraine, but don't give a damn about all the other on-going conflicts in the world.

Keep fighting the good fight.

It seems your reasons for your views stand on a better foundation than mine, given the apparently curious comment that you know that those who are dying all share the same view.

So, then, we are on equal footing, standing "above" the dead. The difference seems to be that I want the war to end sooner rather than later, while you opt for the opposite - the obvious consequences of such a view needing little elaboration, as we daily see.

Make of that what you will.

There is honor in fighting even for a cause that cannot be won.

The issue is the continued cost of doing so, in terms of lives at stake, not to mention those pesky "externalities" that are hurting the whole world. And further problems that may arise if escalation continues.

There comes a point in which one must consider the costs of further loss of life.

Yes, plenty of smugness - from those who aren't fighting, rooting for those who are dying.

It's all irrationality to the highest degree. Nationalism is poison, be it Russian, Ukrainian, American or whatever.

Combine that with modern weaponry and a comfortably-at-home support team rooting for "victory" and you get all those deaths you mention. As a bonus, you get to feel good for "supporting the good guys".

It should be added that it's actually supporting the death of the good guys.

:roll:

Well, some bombs are better than others, apparently. Putin's bombs hurt more. Ergo, lets guarantee he uses more of them.

Good times...

Use them in so far as you find them interesting and/or, more importantly, useful.

In so far as Mww knows Kant in a way very few professionals do - despite his claims to the contrary - one need not go this far, unless you are so motivated, which you need not be. There is something to be said about writing clearly, which goes beyond mere aesthetic...

It would require, many, many years to become an expert at that level. But there is so much to read and learn, often people who are ignored of overlooked say interesting things too.

Having said that, it's a good thread, surely some will find plenty of value here.

The US has many such friends everywhere.

These friends are all evil incarnate until a few bombs brings them freedom and democracy....

Yes, these so-called supporters of Ukraine really, really care for them - so much so that they don't mind how much blood is spilled in exchange for a piece of land.

It's good that they don't care nearly as much about those other countries you mention. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

He was a massive troll, wow, what a clown.

It was just lazy on my part not to force myself to read the last 100 or so pages, but I kept putting off till' it was way too late to read it, I forgot so many characters and plot that I have to start from zero.

Strangely, his prose in ATD is probably his easiest to read. I also thought quite well of Inherent Vice, the movie was shit though.

Because we are misled by what we think are the "easy problems". We think we have much better intuitions than we do. There are several hard problems, not just consciousness.

What's the argument for saying language has a "purpose"? One is pre-supposing that there is such a "purpose".

We have it now, so in retrospect we put assign it such a thing. But I think one of the ways to frame your main point is to argue that we don't have full definitions - outside mathematics.

Sure, no single word is exhausted by our trying to explain it. But if we attempt to be clear in what we are arguing for - then in need to dissolve into gibberish. We just have to face the fact that there are things we have that we cannot explain to our satisfaction, such as us having full definitions.

Because one often needs help in such circumstances then the issue no longer reflects a person's autonomy? Well, if that is the case, we have no autonomy in almost anything - because we get assisted in all aspects of life.

Nevertheless, if one does not have a say in what you do with yourself, I don't know what should count as having a say in something.

As for circumstances, many, notably cases of enduring and not-relieveable pain, severe mental disorders and, sometimes, very bad luck. If a person really wants to die, they will find a way - often a quite horrible one at that. Better to allow these things to occur with empathy, instead of moral grandstanding.

And sure, we should be careful in cases in which what's going on is no more than a temporary depression.

I've done one for Chomsky and Hume.

Coming up is Locke's Essay, probably focusing on 3 chapters, but I've still to finish re-reading the book.

Hah! I will say, that opening quote is probably my favorite of all time.

I really hope you enjoy it. I stopped at pg. 910 - no joke. Yes, I am that stupid.

:victory:

• The Great Philosophers: An Introduction to Western Philosophy, Bryan Magee — 180 Proof

:fire:



Per 180's suggestion, continuing with Magee:

His Confessions of a Philosopher and then, The Philosophy of Schopenhauer. He's probably the single best one, but I'm sure there are others.

I have pending a Locke's Essay reading group, probably will cover 3-4 different chapter, but I've still to finish it again. but am not too far from it.

Not higher quality per se, but content that expands on my own interests.

There is also very high-quality content here and some which are not very good. But my options are rather limited and I find that many posters here are very good and interesting.

There aren't good alternatives where I live, and I very much enjoy what I do. But it's also hard to enjoy these things without discussing them. Waste of time can be very nebulous: you could be visiting a country or meeting a "distinguished" member of society, but if you are bored and/or not stimulated then you are wasting your time with these "useful" activities.

I see what you are saying, I'd add that it's not linguistics solely, but also conceptual. By expressing ourselves in a clear and concise manner, the information or data we are presenting is more easily understood than in some other, more technical or obscure manner.

Understanding is not limited to language, I don't think. But, point taken.

It's likely, or at least it wouldn't surprise me. But one can explain the basics of Kant without much trouble.

That was Foucault. Derrida claimed that he never fell into that temptation to write more obscurely for the sake of profundity. Clearly, he wasn't being honest.

Well, I suppose that arguing, instead of Occam's razor per se, that one should present a hypothesis or theory in the simplest available manner is better than presenting such information in a convoluted or inflated way.

One can say that gravity pulls apples to the ground.

Or one can say that given the universe we are an in, and the planet we find ourselves in, plus the properties of apples all combine such that it follows, that in the vast majority of circumstances, gravity on Earth pulls apples to the ground given ordinary conditions, because a hurricane might complicate the process.

Both are true, one is simpler. But sometimes we cannot simplify more than we'd like.

This topic wasn't my focus when I wrote about Strawson, so I can say very little. Free will arguments often get stuck really quickly on intuitions.

I think we should distinguish personal pre-disposition with choices. I have a pre-disposition to get really bored in large crowds, but I still have a choice to remain or to leave.

I can't, of course, force myself to be pre-disposed to change what I like or dislike, with some minor exceptions. But within this constraint, I have plenty of options.

But if you do suppose that, then solipsism collapses. You can only suppose that you are the only thing in existence, and the question would be how long would you render your existence tenable, right *now*, an hour, you whole life?

So, you need some kind of modification to allow the supposition to be postulated at all.

but can we ever say that it is a waste? I think not. It is thanks to those who care; hold pragmatic hope and take action that life can be improved. — Amity

Not a waste per se. But comparatively less rich for some people.

But in cases of sensory deprivation, there is hope as our experience of the world is tremendously rich.

I mean, if we do permanently lose the faculties that allows for consciousness, that is a case of a life that's over, for all practical purposes.

Depends on the context. If you know the mythology behind Santa Claus and want to explain it to somebody, you could say that Santa would be the person thought about.

If you are merely saying that Santa brought gifts, then Santa would be the thought, or so it can be argued.

We don't have a clear notion of what a thought even is.

But generally speaking, this distinction is more semantic than substantive.

I don't see why Santa Claus would be a "non-thing". It's a mental construction of a person in a red dress living in the North Pole, that's a thing - though it lacks concrete existence in the world.

I mean, most of the words we use all the time, even right now, aren't referring to anything.

Sometimes, we refer as when we speak of that car the ran through a red light or this cool moment in a novel. What's the problem? A "thing" must be concrete? Well, most of the universe isn't. We can't see quarks, but few physicists would say these are "non-things".

In another sense, one can do experiments that show the existence of quarks. Not so with Santa Claus. Neither are concrete.

Yet people speak about Santa Claus all the time, so the issue of the alleged difficulty does not arise, if one drops word-object obligations.

All kinds of things, ranging from ideas to mythical creatures to a car outside the window and so on.

The act of referring to a specific thing is one of many things we do when we talk. In a normal conversation we do all kinds of things, including showing emotions, laughing, talking with no particular goal in mind.

And then you have the politician, who can spend an hour talking and not saying anything, much less referring to an event or anything of substance.

The thing is you are assuming there is a reference relation between words and things. If there is no reference relation, the problem disappears, we have no trouble speaking about Santa Claus or Pegasus.

I don't think there is a reference relation between words and things. People refer, not words themselves.

I don't think so, unless you think that other mammals don't have experience, which goes against what we observe in nature.

But language is crucial for articulating thought. Without it, one can at best have specific signals such as "predator", "food", "sex" and so on.

But for anything other than very basic things, language is needed for the higher consciousness we have, I'd wager.

It's your mind pal.

As he says in ATD: Good Luck.

:victory:

I'd suggest V or GR before Against the Day. It can be a real possibility that this latter book will erode your endurance. It's not a bad book by any means, but it far inferior to V and GR. V is probably his most fun book.

But good luck with whatever you choose. Inherent Vice was quite fun.

Very beautiful song - and a wonderful voice.

I don't see how we can reclaim spirituality from the New Age aspects the word has acquired. Having said that, anyone can use the word.

If we had no such thing as music or books, or plays and colors and tastes, well then, life would be indeed be a waste.

So there's hope in that, as you say. :)

It's hard to maintain a view of the world objectively and speak much about hope. It is a strategy to maintain some semblance of sanity. Otherwise, things are simply too bleak for us.

I do want to add though, that being secular too, as I am, can be a profoundly mystical experience. I hesitate to talk about spirituality, given how loaded the word is.

But depending on which traditions you follow and how you view the world from a more general perspective, can be a source of very profound experiences.

In fact, you mentioned one: music. It is a privilege to be a being that is capable of appreciating such a thing, noise to other creatures, sublime to us.

As with music, many other experiences too. Not sure if this connects with hope, but, worth pointing out.

Let’s suppose some sort of universal mind creates me and everyone else. — Art48

This doesn't follow from the rest of your reasoning. You could make an argument that solipsism solves the problems you say it does, such as the problem of evil.

But from solipsism to "universal mind", there is no connection. You are postulating something independent of you in this specific case.

And if you allow a "universal mind", you'll need to allow much more.