He said as much in the speech he gave yesterday. I think NATO didn't want him because they knew that having a country of the size could cause the organization to differ on strategic grounds.

That's the question.

In diplomacy, you always need to offer all sides a way to save face or declare a victory of sorts.

If it is true that Putin was assured that NATO membership was out of the negotiating table for them, then he had to act somehow, it seems to me.

The issue is, I don't know if this is the proper action to take: we don't know all the options he had available so far.



Yeah. That's what's being talked about, if you get a bunch of mercenaries and just give em' a bunch of weapons, then Ukraine could well be destroyed. If these weapons inflict serious causalities on the Russian side, then all bets are off, in terms of a massive invasion.

We may be removed from that for now, but not at all implausible I think. You're likely correct on the troops front.



I can't pretend neutrality. In fact, I think it's kind of a myth. One can ask for better sources based on what one deems to be reliable news.

I think that Democracynow.org is pretty good, they do an hourly show.

Matt Taibbi used to live in Russia, and knows people, so any stuff that comes from him will be excellent.

Jack Matlock, one of the last ambassadors to the USSR, know Russia quite well, his articles will be very informed.

I think that Al Jazeera here isn't prone to a strong "pro" or "anti" stance in this situation, that I'm aware of.

Beyond that, it's a bit of picking and choosing what sounds most reasonable.

If we don't know what physical reality is, it makes little sense to speak of non-physical reality.

Best to start with what can be elucidated than to go on to something which isn't clearly posed.

So we're going to stop Putin how? A strongly worded letter? — Isaac

:rofl:

Dear Sir,

Please stop. This is not helping.

Sincerely,

The West

Bah, Boris Johnson is an effing clown.

Not surprising to see such donations being given. But then this is all posturing from the UK.

Thanks for sharing that info.



If that happens, I can't imagine more countries not getting involved, maybe Poland.

We'll find out soon enough if an attack goes off.

Yeah, that's how it is now.

But it could expand. I'm aware Ukraine now has significantly better weaponry than they did back with the Crimea situation, but, I don't think Ukraine can do too much to Russia's military.

So they may ask for help. Who is willing to help them help beyond giving them weapons, as in offering troops, is not too clear. Maybe neighboring countries.

Ah, did not know that.

I suppose it doesn't hurt that he owns Chelsea.

Nevertheless, if they want to give severe sanctions, I'd imagine most oligarchs would be involved. Not that I think this should be done - I don't know what should be done now.

I don't have a good picture of how this could play out.

Hopefully it's mostly a political scare, than anything beyond that.

The Philosophical Writings of Descartes Volumes I-II

Russia-Ukraine live updates: Kyiv to declare state of emergency

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/23/not-peacekeepers-at-all-un-chief-condemns-russia-move-live

Well, things are shaking up. It's hard to say how it will play out.

It was interesting to hear Matt Taibbi speaking on this topic, he pointed out that the sanctions so far given to Russia have been extremely mild, like, Roman Abrhamovic, the owner of Chelsea, is completely fine.

Germany has put a stop to the pipeline as mentioned here.

But surely attacking Kiev would be wild.

Sure. That's why I linked to this article, not another one.

The FT is interesting. It has to present more or less tolerable view of the world to the people who own it, they can't be like CNN, almost never having dissident voices on.

If the people who run the world don't know anything about it, it's hard to make investments or know what to do when it comes to important business deals.

But if you look around, you'll find an article or two that is pretty decent. But as new info comes in, there will be better sources.

Ha.

I mean, I'd need to wait a bit so I can find some reliable info. At this moment, most info is going to be very politically charged.

I'm not sure doing this was in Russia's interest, because it plays directly to the hawks in Washington, who will be thrilled. Maybe they know something we don't. I'm assuming he knew that the negotiations with Ukraine on NATO were dead. But I need verification on this, from a reliable source.

Still, it's very risky and dangerous.

But as you know, the US and NATO are hardly trustworthy either, they've lied over and over again. Ideally Minsk II could have been accepted, but, that's likely dead now.

Look, I know you're joking with the comment, the way I see it is that Russia does need safety from NATO. Ukraine should have self defense, as any modern nation state should. And if force is used en masse in Ukraine, they have a right to fight back, no matter the history, what matters is now.

So it's complex.

What bothers me personally, is all these people using the very same sources who've NEVER seen a war they did not like, suddenly use these sources as reliable. It's Orwell in real life.

What I am almost certain of, is if the tables were turned, NATO would be destroying any country threatening its borders.

This doesn't justify anything, but it's what would happen.

We'll see how it goes.

Decent article from the Financial Times on the topic:

https://www.ft.com/content/a87bdc20-94a9-4be8-b92c-f2dba7ab1b76

That would be nice.

If NATO won't do anything - which is not clear to me - then I think we can have some confidence that sanctions will be forthcoming. But if they are too severe, Europe is in trouble with its energy supply.

And then that, would be very worrying.

I pray you're right.

Well, well.

Shit.

What a mess.

We'll see. They keep saying this invasion is imminent, for like the 5th time.

Again, I don't particularly like Putin - but we all more than know about his crimes, that doesn't really produce much thought.

But I don't think he's a moron. I don't think he will invade Ukraine to face off against NATO. That's suicide. Not just for him, maybe the world - and I wish I were exaggerating.



They can impose sanctions, but they'll have to be very careful. They can turn off energy supplies to Europe, which would be a big problem.

From a Russian perspective, ever since NATO's continued expanding to the East, after having been promised it would not move an "inch" to the East, they have reason to be warry. No powerful state would want a hostile military alliance, much less NATO, at the border.

If Russia does go in and invade Ukraine, it's over. NATO can't step back given the rhetoric its using. And Russia actually invades, then they indeed will look like fools for having done so, due to the repeated Western warnings of such an event.

It could happen, of course, world events are very complex and multi-faceted. We will see.



It was part of the quite disastrous disintegration of the USSR - which could have proceeded in a much better direction, with less suffering involved for all, as we are now seeing.

It's funny that Crimea is mentioned so frequently - and fine to mention it, fair - but Guantanamo is not. Yet Guantanamo has nothing to do with the US - there are no Americans living there, minus the base. But people don't like to hear this.

Agree that a peaceful co-management of the territories would be best. Maybe hard to carry out, but, worth a shot. Now it's a bit late for that.

No, they can't call out Turkey, they have too much to lose by getting into a political row with them. China isn't going anywhere. Those cases you mention can be multiplied probably dozens of times over. But, if they're Allie$, it's all fine.

Yes, it doesn't need one. But why does Washington care about Ukraine and not Afghans? One is clearly connected to the US, the other is not.

I'll even suspend the assessment that the aggression is coming from Moscow, that is, I'll grant it to you for sake of argument. Why should the US intervene? Last I saw, the US had serious internal problems it could focus on.

Now if there was some problem with Canada, then we can speak about responding to aggression.

All that you mention there is fine and important for people to know. But even without such a context, one can say that the US would not allow for Russia to have military bases in Mexico, regardless of what Mexico wanted.

That historical info adds further foundations as to why Russia is acting as it is, which look to me to be rational behavior.

As for acting in the interests of its people, yeah in part. Last I saw most Russians cared about the local economy and COVID and did not think much about Ukraine. It would not be surprising to find out most people inside support Russia now, if it drags on much longer, this becomes less clear.

And, one should mention, that saying "the interests of X people", be it Russia, the USA, South Africa, Australia or whatever, can be confusing. It's not as if the interests of a public school teacher is the same as the CEO of some Bank, yet both belong to "X people".

He’s going to have a long conversation with Sabine Hossenfelder this week in the Theories of Everything Podcast, which is, all in all, excellent.

No, not militarily. They can only defend themselves, but I believe the US has a few submarines with nuclear capacity, which deters China.

That situation is more difficult. Look at what happened to Hong Kong, pretty sad.

But if China did want to expand to the South China Sea (misleadingly called), they have to go through Taiwan, which blocks them.

But, they're building islands instead. That's one situation in which I have no clue how to proceed.

Ukraine has a blueprint at least.

You think Heidegger is more radical than Husserl? I don't know about this literature much, have read a few things though.

On the other hand, I've spoken to Husserlians who think Heidegger is basically being arbitrary in his choosing "dasein" as the main mode of being in the world.

In any case, I think it's a bit misleading to call Husserl's later philosophy "transcendental idealism", given that he denies "things in themselves", as I've understood the topic. But, feel free to correct it.

I think if someone borrows the term, the basic differences should be accepted, though of course they can be modified, as Schopenhauer and Mainlander did.

Sure about Russia not joining the Western sphere of influence. But Russia itself is hardly a paradise. I think they right in this situation.

But Russian elites are no better than Western ones.

Of course, the West has committed most of the crimes in the 20th century, because they've had the power to do so. But most states with power, do similar things.

I should've specified, a country in Russia's context would be acting as Russia is.

Look at Taiwan, for instance, both sides are doing military drills in the straight all the time. There is an analogue to Ukraine in that instance.

But it's true that China has been significantly less involved in border issues. India has the problem with Pakistan, no easy situation to be in. They've been rather harsh in Kashmir (Pakistan too), that's a really hard situation.

Part of it has to do with wanting to maintain regional power, as it had for most of the 20th century. It surely did not handle the collapse of the USSR in the best manner, and they're paying for it now.

I think they're "punching above" as it is.

And if I'm not mistaken, I believe Husserl thought something similar about Heidegger after Being and Time was published, in the sense that he thought Heidegger was kind of psychologizing phenomenology. I think they're focusing different aspects of a similar project.



Not bad prejudices to have, as far as I can see.

There is value to be found in prior-to-Kant speculative metaphysics and even in some post-Kantian speculative metaphysics, such as Whitehead. But they can always be charged with going beyond possible experience, and that's not so easy to refute.

Tough question. Adherents would say phenomenology is the most concrete philosophy, others may doubt this...

Ah yes, Henry. I'm not a fan, nothing against him personally, but I really don't see what big contribution he made. One of my professors knew him personally, so he was frequently talked about in my program. Never managed to connect with his thought at all, but many others did, so, maybe I'm missing out.

As for the given, C.I. Lewis talks about it quite interestingly. As does Raymond Tallis.



These are reactions to Kantian conclusions. Or else going back to empiricism, of a kind Hume or Locke would likely not accept.

I wouldn't be as harsh, as it's not clear to me that phenomenology is metaphysics of the transcendental kind. But there's truth in what you say.

As for TI, I think the basic framework or outline, is rather clear. But if you say "things in themselves" are meaningless, or don't exist or are empty signifier, then you're borrowing a name which has little to do with the actual thought proposed.

Just a general comment, when I was finishing my studies, a portion of my teachers were into phenomenology, often following the thought of some of the lesser well known figures.

In so far as I followed such arguments, I rarely found them convincing or persuasive. Parts of Husserl and Heidegger are good, but a lot of it looks to me to be what you mention, making obvious things really, really complicated.

Clearly "taste" is the wrong word, I'd have to say, it's a matter of one's own philosophy.

As to the Lexus example, and the bells and whistles, there's something to that in some phenomenology.

I tend to agree with your view and it's not many people who would claim that Husserl went beyond Kant.

Russia behaves as would any other country given its size and military.

The "colonial mission" to "civilize the barbarians" has remained unchanged. — Apollodorus

Fisk's The Great War for Civilization is a masterclass on this, though it focuses in the Middle East, it's an amazing book.

Not at all.

Russia has committed war crimes in Chechnya and also in Afghanistan and most recently in Syria. There are no innocent states.

But the crimes committed by states is proportional to the power they have.

It's the common theme for super powers. Britain, Spain, etc, is the same thing, but now there's more tech involved.

Yes. I remember the Kosovo situation, Western Intellectuals really went crazy in that one. As if anyone really believes they actually care about Muslims. Not if you look at the Middle East and other parts of the world.

They are playing a dangerous game, likely to win some political points (Russia too, but they have security concerns, as does Ukraine), but this is not the place to do such things.

The Western Intelligence community is extremely ideological, though they pretend to be "neutral".



Yeah. It's really dangerous and stupid.

Frank, it's propaganda on both sides, we happen to choose which one we think is most plausible. I'm not pretending to be viewing this thing from a "view from nowhere", which we know doesn't exist.

I'm basing my comment on the fact that there have been many reports of an imminent Russian attack, which has not materialized each time it was stated. It got to the point that the Ukrainian president told the West to tone it down, or it would increase tensions.

It's not as if there's no lack of history of this with the Gulf of Tonkin, or Iraq's WMD.

Having said that, it would be really stupid to actually engage in such an act. But it's no less smart to keep saying that things are really immanent, and they haven't happened.

I mean, if they (US and UK intelligence) continue saying such non-sense, it would not be surprising if they'd actually do some false flag operation and blame it on the Russians.

Things aren't as easy for them since the Iraq intel fiasco.

Hey Joshs :cool: There's no wavey icon here, so that'll do instead.

Eh, it becomes tricky. I think this depends on how one thinks about rationalism actually, and how much Descartes to Hume could be said to be aware of "things-in-themselves".

Of course, though "synthesizing" rationalism and empiricism, one would have to say that, on the whole, Kant is very much in the rationalist camp in so far as he attributes to our mental powers so much more than Locke and Hume.

Though proceeded by others - clearly - the phenomena - things-in-themselves distinction is crucial here, as is the reigning in of speculative metaphysics. These arguments cause lots of arguments in favor and against.

Then you have, roughly, Humean, "empiricists", of a (to me) poorer quality than Hume's.

Descartes, generally, is not much praised these days, with few outliers, like Husserl and Chomsky.

The important thing to me and what I think makes Kant such an important figures, is that up to Kant, almost everyone agrees who the great philosophers were. Beyond him, there is no agreement, with the possible exception of the major American Pragmatists.

Marx, Nietzsche, Russell, Husserl, Heidegger, Quine, Carnap, Whitehead and others are extremely polarizing.

That's right.

But Kant's a-priori presuppositions are, strictly speaking, false. We may individuate space and time as being different things, but they're not. We can't envision space without time, and maybe even time without space.

It's crucial to remember that Kant was a Newtonian, he took Newton's concepts of space and time to be a-priori, but these were empirical postulates made by Newton.

This doesn't mean that there's nothing a-priori, on the contrary, likely most things are, in some sense. But they're not obviously evident to discover, I don't think.

Yes. I'm currently reading Descartes now and I have to say, most of the criticism hurled at him is extremely unfair. He was eminently reasonable, clear and persuasive, he was doing the best he could with what he had.

And to his credit, he treats "ordinary people" with much respect and even admiration, which is contrary to what a lot of the other figures did.

Whether Husserl goes "beyond" Kant, is a matter of taste. Fair or not, we haven't really moved beyond the framework made popular by Kant. We have to modify some of his ideas, such as "spacetime" instead of space and time and most of us would say that his categorical imperative is impossible to live up to.

But had he been a better writer, I think it would have been better for everyone. At least his Prolegomena is pretty accessible, all considered.

Heidegger has his own philosophy which depends on the use of language, it's a kind of description of the world attached to a way of thinking. Kierkegaard too, to a lesser extent.

Yet look at Dreyfus' interpretation of Heidegger, it's very clear. Some may debate how accurate it is, but it can be quite useful.

I think Aristotle is verbose and Locke isn't a good writer, yet both have much to say.

Descartes and Hume, are quite clear, though Hume is harder to understand because the topic he's speaking of is quite abstract in certain areas.

The point here being that these topics are already hard, verbosity only makes it harder without necessity (in the vast majority of cases). Of course, some people simply lack style or the capacity for clear expression. That's fine.

Once you enter Hegel territory, I'm very suspect much of substance is being said.

Probably something like being aware of how little we know and to moderate our aspirations and expectations accordingly.

It seems to be an important theme guiding a good deal of the classical figures in western philosophy.

It's certainly true that our science has increased considerably, but this shouldn't lead us to believe that our epistemic situation has changed much.

And then again most people who are labeled as being "enlightened" very much reject being called such a thing.

that clarity for clarity's sake is a complete failure. Good if one is fascinated by puzzles (e.g., those Gettier problems) I guess, but dreadful if one has a passion for truth. — Astrophel

That's exactly right. In general, it's good to be clear and precise. But some people try to be so precise they end up saying nothing at all.

On the other hand - and this applies to Kant - one should be able to express these sophisticated ideas in a manner that most people would at least get a "flavor" of, if they wished to get the gist of the topic.

One can, I think, express Kant's basic notions without much verbiage, which is something he is guilty of. Look at Schopenhauer, for instance, he states many of Kant's ideas in a very clear manner (most of the time).