Well - maybe in certain situations such a measure could be appropriate.

In the meantime, it's not as if one is going to go to Truth Social or some site like that to reason with anyone. Yes, we react - maybe that should change.

I don't see where to start at the moment, other than donating to causes, participating in events. The thing is to communicate with those that are not yet completely gone.

It's very hard to fight against cults. Just looking at some of the survivors or people who quit - it takes a lot of time and they usually have to hit rock bottom to awaken and notice they've been had.

Truth is certainly a big component, the issue for me is that the standards of evaluation from which we can make informed decisions are labeled as "political" instead of being taken as facts.

I fear that only when people notice how f*cked they are, will they change their minds. By then too much damage will have been done.

Worst of all, if the Democrats keep with this centrist "bi-partisan" crap, they may win in 2028 - but if they don't change quite radically, the cycle will repeat itself all the time going further to the right, which drags everything to the right as well. That's not a path that will lead to sanity.

I have seen your political posts and discussions here and elsewhere.

I frankly don't think there would be any point in discussing these matters with you.

It's hard to say. We can only hope for the best and try to help out whatever way we can to combat this right-wing plague surging everywhere.

Your son is Australian right? He will be fine if he's white, most likely. It's black and brown people that will have an issue, sad to say.

Maybe another candidate could have won. Maybe not. Hard to say. Biden being so old and being the current president makes it difficult to campaign criticizing him harshly, which is what I suspect most Dems would have liked.

On the one hand, there is no doubt this was the Democrats race to lose (they have more registered voters). On the other, so many people in the US are just clueless and very badly informed.

It should be evident very soon. The people saying I regret voting for Trump" will come put so quickly. It is so predictable and maddening.

Along with all else mentioned, yeah, we're fucked.

You know, I suppose the only silver lining here, quite literally (for me), is that I think Trump is right on Ukraine IF he is honest about it.

That view triggers the hell out of libs. But he's right about it, gotta say it.

Everything else (Israel included) will be much worse.

I don't think "tree" applies in this case because "time" is being compared to other ideas with no body — Paine

Then let's speak of an idea of a tree then. Are we going to say that an idea of a tree exhausts what a tree is?

Or let's take his example of time, does our idea of time exhaust itself by being present to our minds? That's doubtful, unless you believe an idea is all there is to the thing you are having an idea about.

True, the 1.5 goal was already surpassed this year, but the important issue is to avoid going much further beyond that.

Now it will be almost impossible to stop maybe even 2 degrees, and that's a disaster.

I mean, we don't know until we get to it (with 100% certainty anyways) but growing food will become much harder, a huge percentage of marine life will vanish, living in many parts of the world will become unfeasible.

That's pretty bad.

Well, I mean if Trump just completely cuts most (if not all) climate regulation and accelerates oil extraction then it is most certain we will not reach 1.5 nor even 2c by 2030, essentially guaranteeing the end of civilization. Granted, this is somewhat medium-ish term, but that's big.

As for the rest, well, I hope you are right in this case. I shudder to think things will change to the significant worse. But your prediction is bad enough if it comes to fruition.

Interesting times indeed...

True, but before no states had abortion bans. It's fine for individual states to get that right, for sure. Sucks bad for those women who can't do much in those 13 states.

If not for the federal ban, then as you say, it is quite progressive in many social aspects, most notably and most importantly, freedom of speech.

That is one area in which the US clearly has the upper hand compared with most other countries. It's an impressive win vs. the state.

Let's hope Trump doesn't squash those freedoms.

I explicitly referred to developed nations. I don't think it makes much sense to compare Germany to Ecuador. You can do so if you want to, but it would be better to compare Germany to France or to Japan.

If you want to compare the US to other countries, then it is most sensible to do so with a Western European countries or Canada. On economic and social issues, the democratic part is to the right of every developed country, so the Democratic party could not run with the platform they have and call themselves "the left".

That's just a fact.

If Roe got re-introduced as law, then you can argue, with some reason that the US is to the left of other countries on social issues.

That's up to people's consideration as to what counts as left or not.

That's my arrogant view.

I risk a reply out of annoyance. But it's best not to waste time with people who believe this

It will be a nightmare.

Lo que nos toca ahora es muy jodido....

I've been reading about it and find myself confused. Even proponents of the EU claim there's a lack of accountability. — frank

Very confusing, Varoufakis and Modi have good books on the EU, but it is a bureaucratic mess. Not all of it is bad by any means, but still, highly perplexing.

Wow.

You are missing the point big time.

Should've expected it.

And ignore the evangelicals at your risk.

Not economically no. Now, or as of the removal of Roe, not even socially. If they manage to get Roe back in, then we can speak about the Democrats being left on world standards.

Of course, the US is not Europe. The US is an outlier in first world countries, failing to provide healthcare as right to everyone, among other scandals.

So yes, the US is to the right of the developed world by these standards. Doesn't mean the people are, but the system is. If you remove comparisons between developed countries, then there is no metric to say what's left or right or anything else.

I mean, for reference, anything to the right of Trump is called "radical left". That's insane.

It's a complex subject. The way it is currently structured is based on a system which basically gives German banks the power to control the value of the Euro based on German elite financial needs.

In an ironic twist, the European Central Bank is worse than the Fed. The only mandate the ECB has is to control inflation. At least the Fed attempts to keep unemployment low as one of its mandates, in addition to controlling inflation.

So yes, it is an Oligarchy - as everywhere else, but it has a very strange dynamic to it.

If they move any further to the left, they would just be centrist or maybe center-right. They would not be left in any European country. Not even the right in Europe would dare privatize health care.

As for Israel, you better be thankful the US donor class "supports" it, because it has no friends left and is a pariah state, for good reason. And your friends those fanatical Evangelicals are the most anti-Semitic of them all

Immediately after your quoted sentence he says:

"It is not new facts about time which we want to know. All the facts that concern us lie open before us."

Let's replace "time" with anything, say a tree or an idea. It is not the case that "all the facts" are open to us, only those facts which we are of aware of at the given time and (crucially) those facts which we may have no access to.

We are limited on our observations about trees relative to the capacity of our senses and the capacity of our cognitive components.

This applies to our mental powers, or mind as well and much else. He is problematizing something like mental mediation here, which is not clear to me what the problem is.

This is an important connection than my merely trying to record the aghast commonly felt at what is seen as removing the self (just, as an object), when he is just following through the categorical error of the ‘strong temptation’ of causality. I would only add that we would be “standing on the outside trying to look in” to ourselves as well if we imagine we can “look into” our own casual object (agent, “self”). Not to move further from the text but to place this in company, the PI will treat the other as opaque and talk of boxes with things hidden, etc. — Antony Nickles

I see him saying that we are not concerned with the "causal connections" here, not that they are a category error. We can discuss this if we want, rather, we are choosing not to do so now.

I would agree that we can't - despite (some of) us wanting - peer more into the nature of the self than something like what Hume describes. In this part, I do agree with the example and the general outlook.

It's a good idea.

But it would go against monied interests, so it can't happen. At least not through Cable News.

The destruction of the Earth's climate? Tax cuts for the super wealthy? Increased hostility towards China, including trade wars?

There is ignorance everywhere. But some of it is quite worse for people at large.

It's a non-trivial matter to distribute culpability here. Clearly, lots of people are gullible and vote against their interests. Yet there is also manifest stupidity and ignorance.

How to make sense of this? For now, answers are pending.

Not a bad reply.

Those are plentiful! Liberals cry about everything. :)

I guess. He kind of did some of this during his last term too.

Well, four more years for them to see everything burn.

That's likely an important element. What % that covers is not entirely clear, but yes, it is a factor.

There are some hints as to why Harris likely lost.

But I don't understand why people think Trump does anything for them.

I don't know what to say, frankly.

That is the prudent thing to do.

But it does not look good in most of those states.

You are technically correct.

Also, I am a total and complete clown. Never take my US political predictions seriously. smh

Welppp. Heh, seems Tobias instincts are very, very good.

You are right, he may well be the winner. For sure.

But beyond a shadow of a doubt, in political philosophy?

That's more than we can know.

Instincts are another matter.

Yes. Very poor sentence, I meant to say, I don't think there are many similarities between Clinton and Harris' situation. The only surprise was turnout for Trump in states assumed to be blue, that went for him.

This time, there is no such complacency in the "blue wall" states. Furthermore, I think that pollsters may for once be over-estimating Trump.

Finally - Selzer's poll aside - it's been a brutal week for Trump.

That is correct. And he could win. It's merely anecdotal and vibes based, which is as good as useless.

But - we are here to talk. EDIT: I think the similarities between Clinton's situation and Harris situation are an exaggeration.

Again, we will see in a few hours.

I don't think Trump will win. And I don't think his stolen claims get as much traction, though tensions will arise, no doubt.

Let's see how my comment ages. My feeling is that he will get trounced in the EC.

Clown on me if I am wrong, as I should deserve it.

Hah!

Well. I am cautiously optimistic. But you can never tell. Hopefully we will be able to see what the heck most pollsters got wrong in assumptions, IF they were wrong, which seems likely given so many .2, .4 and 1% margins.

We will see on Tuesday. But, you made it alive out of that chicken game :)

Oh sure - there are good indications she can win, maybe by a margin which shatters most of the deadlocked polls.

But - it needs to get done and we can't take anything for granted. He *could* win. So, hedge your bets just in case.

It's going to be fascinating to see what all these super tight polls got wrong after the winner is known.

So many margin calls on either side. Selzer's poll was bold if anything, let's see how she stacks up this time. Quite nerve racking honestly...

Yes, but without the flower, judgements about it are meaningless. — Ludwig V

I don't think that's true as a matter of principle.

If we knew enough about the brain, we - the scientists - could stimulate a flower without us - the experimentee - ever having seen one. In this case, the "external object" merely verifies our criteria, the flower itself is not the ground of our judgment (or our asking about it), rather the "red flower" is something which fits our criteria.

I could give you a plastic red flower, indistinguishable from a real red flower, and it would still fit your criteria.

But Wittgenstein's point is that one can bring you a red flower without a visual image. — Ludwig V

I agree, I think it's possible in some cases.

Well, I think you'll find that not everyone interprets that phrase in the same way - especially in philosophy. — Ludwig V

Which is why I said I was a bit surprised to be included in this discussion. I'm well aware I'm quite likely in the minority view.

Nevertheless, Wittgenstein's argument here is ok. I think it's on the right track compared to his earlier views.

Yes, Descartes thought his way through to radical skepticism, but what we are dealing with here is the first part, which is wanting certainty (thinking of the whole world as objects we should be able to “see”, or know, as we do trees, etc.), which is the desire that starts the spinning. — Antony Nickles

Very much so - it is a big problem (certainty). And maybe phrasing it a bit harder that Wittgenstein (so far), certainty (100% no doubts at all) is impossible in the empirical world.

For me "mental image" is just pictorial stuff. The semantic stuff is not inherent in the image, but is the use we make of it. I don't think he denies that there are such things or that we might make use of them. But he does insist that this is only one way that we might find the red flower. — Ludwig V

Well, the most immediate example would be of a blind person asking for a red flower. But then since they can't see, it would be strange for them to ask for a red one, as opposed to just a "flower".

But I asked you to bring me the flower itself. The criteria are only a means to an end. — Ludwig V

And I did. But if I have poor vision, or confused red with pink then you are the one who needs to correct me, right? So, I give you the pink flower, you see the flower and judge it not to be red. It is your judgment of your perception triggered by the flower that corrects my mistake.

The flower is the stimulus, but without judgments ascertaining if what I gave you is correct, then the flower is quite useless.

"Have in mind" is a problematic phrase in this context. Let's say "it is not what you asked me to bring you." The blue flower that I bring you is not a problem in itself. But there is a problem with it in the context of your request to me. It's true that my interpretation of your request is a misinterpretation. Is that what you mean? — Ludwig V

To be clear I do believe in mental content and am a quite fanatical innatist and ardent believer in innate ideas. I am quite skeptical of "externalism" in most areas in philosophy.

I was somewhat surprised to be invited to discuss this, but it is welcome.

So, I don't find the phrase "have in mind" to be particularly problematic in the least.

You can interpret what you say in that manner if you wish, no problems at all from my part.

More than that, there seems to be no guarantee that I have the right mental image or that I do not misinterpret the mental image that I do have. Whatever is going on in my mind, the test is whether I get it right and come up with the red flower I was asked for - and that is not settled in my mind. — Ludwig V

The point is that it is not entirely clear to me what the term "mental image" encapsulates. I don't know if it includes solely pictorial stuff, or if it includes semantic terms as well. I suspect it does play a role.

That last part "and that is not settled in my mind." is tricky. Sure, it's possible that I might bring you a flower that does not match the "red flower" you asked for.

But what actually settles the issue in this case are the criteria you asked for, not the flower itself.

If the flower I give you does not satisfy the conditions you have, then it does not match what you have in mind. The problem is not in the object, but our interpretation of it.

The “queer”-ness is that the nature of the issue has gotten twisted (to have necessity), so the kind of solution (like an object) creates a strange magic that must happen. Imagine “understanding” not as an agreement that allows us to carry on (with someone), but as an epiphany that happens inside your brain when you “know” what they know (the “object” of their understanding), then explaining that seems “queer” (as some modern neuroscience tries to). — Antony Nickles

It seems like a natural(ish) way of thinking about this, assuming necessity, because in ordinary talk, why would it seem different?

People won't even think of necessity, but as soon as you ask them what is a tree?, or what is a car?, they will insist it's those things they can point to.

But once you think about this a bit more carefully, I think you discover, that no necessity is involved.

He's pointing out that whatever is in our minds, it can't do what philosophers have supposed it does. There's a moment of arm-waving and hocus-pocus when we are told that a mental image tells us which flowers are red or an internal map that we follow when we are going to the shops. Whether the image is mental or physical, it has to be read - interpreted. That's his target. — Ludwig V

It's hard to parse out, there is a lot of stuff going on when we speak about a "red flower", which includes not only the words, but the word order, any mental associations we may specifically have, assuming that what is asked for is a "real red flower" as opposed to a "plastic red flower", if you don't know the language and someone asks you for a red flower, you could end up buying a brand that is spelled "red flower", and on and on.

In short, there is a lot going on, and it is not evident to me that mental images don't play an important role. Also, what "mental images" specifically covers can be subtle.