Such as something wrong with our ability to perceive anything at all (which we should also keep in mind is only one example of philosophies desire to create a problem as one kind of thing, as with: appearances, beliefs, subjective, morality, etc.) — Antony Nickles

rather than what Austin is doing here which is to examine how our failings are varied and thus have various ordinary ways in which we account for them. — Antony Nickles

Yes. :up:

The invalidity of this is apparently not obvious to many. Stove's gem, the worst argument in the world, and so on. — Banno

I personally think that it is invalid because it is simplistic, and it doesn't prove too much. But I don't want to get deeper in this specific premise because I agree with you.

And when you see yourself in a mirror, there is no need to invent a simulacrum to stand in for you. There is no illusion, no hallucination and no error. What you see is yourself, reflected in the mirror. Again, this is what mirrors do, and no further explanation is needed that replaces your reflection with anything immaterial. — Banno

Interesting. But do we see ourselves in the mirrors because this is what they do - reflecting - or because do we actually exist? OK, we can conclude that 'real' objects are phenomenal, as we ordinarily treat them; and the things - or ourselves - that appear are, most of the time, real. That is just the point. And, this point comes from a 'general coherence' of our experience. What the argument from the possibility of hallucinations gets us is a brief possibility to doubt on this coherence. Note please, that my aim is not to doubt everything and always, as I said previously, things must exist objectively, but they are 'interfered' by our senses. I understand that taken delusion with sufficient seriousness, it is an argument against the possibility of knowledge in general.

So, if I am capable of seeing myself in the mirror, it is thanks to the mirror itself and not me.

Agree? Or am I lost?

I don’t know what you are quoting; I was referring to Austin’s lecture, which is what we are reading — Antony Nickles

I know this thread is about Austin, but when you mentioned me saying: There is a part in this (very small) lecture where he addresses 'real' and 'reality', (here) I thought you had a look at what I shared about Fumerton because that is what I debated with Frank mainly. He and I had a brief exchange on hallucination and how it could be related to Austin. I beg your pardon if I confused you for taking into considerations other readings.

It is a very small lecture, indeed. I think the best I can do is to share the quote entirely. Yet, I read his points because he was quoted in another paper I read about 'Ontological Undecidability'. Here: https://www.friesian.com/undecd-1.htm#sect-9

It was noted above that the existence of hallucinations is an important datum for the manner in which we conceive of the relation between real and phenomenal. But we are still left without clear criteria to distinguish between veridical perception and hallucinatory perception. How do we know when there is and when there is not a real object? This weakness on the objective side of perception indicates that the relation between subject and object is not one that, even with undecidability, is ontologically symmetrical. The difficulties that have always resulted from this asymmetry merit our most serious consideration. For instance, Richard Fumerton believes that "an argument from the possibility of hallucination" proves that naive realism is wrong, meaning that, "we are never directly acquainted with the fact that a physical object exists..." Otherwise, Fumerton's argument turns on the same point as the argument given above, that a cause is only sufficient to its effect, that we conceive of perceptions as caused, and so that an evidently veridical perception can conceivably be caused by something other than the objects it seems to represent. In our experience we are, perhaps, directly acquainted with the facts concerning our mental states, but the possibility that experiences are hallucinations proves that we cannot be directly acquainted with the facts concerning physical objects that, beyond our reckoning, may or may not be causes of our experiences.

I am a bit lost in discerning between 'real' and 'reality', but if I am not wrong, the core of the two concepts depends on truth. Objects are the subject of our knowledge, and their reality depends on our perspective of the world, although they are plainly 'real'. So, while reality is a concept of ours, real is ontological. Agree?

I agree.

Basically, I think that reality does exist objectively. At least, there has to be something which exists at all. Because if we conclude that something doesn't exist, then it existed before, necessarily, because the latter precedes the second.

The debate goes on when Fumerton himself keeps denying realism because, according to him, it is difficult to reckon a physical object due to how the world is dependent upon our mental states.

In our experience we are, perhaps, directly acquainted with the facts concerning our mental states, but the possibility that experiences are hallucinations proves that we cannot be directly acquainted with the facts concerning physical objects that, beyond our reckoning, may or may not be causes of our experiences.

What makes me wonder if it is possible to experience reality from an objective perspective.

But if no one is telling you that you're drugged and hallucinating, you probably would just take the whatever as real. — frank

Good point, I tried to share the same thought as you did previously when I attached a brief PDF of Richard A. Fumerton.
I think this author points out interesting views such as:

How do we know when there is and when there is not a real object?: An argument from the possibility of hallucination" proves that naive realism is wrong, meaning that, "we are never directly acquainted with the fact that a physical object exists..." — Fumerton

We sometimes see things incorrectly; therefore, we never see them correctly.

But it is obvious that some see this point as invalid...

Yet, again, it seems that you and me, are the ones who are interested in 'hallucination' regarding this topic, Frank.

Hey, thank you so much for your kindness for sharing the paper with us. This thread is very interesting, and I am grateful to the users who share comments and attachments to understand it better. :up:

5. We don't attribute truth and falsity to what we see, but to what we make of what we see. Further, and importantly, talk of deception only makes sense against a background in which we understand what it is like not to be deceive. — Banno

Interesting.

It reminds me of this: §9. Hallucination and Truth

Basically, Richard Fumerton argues that 'the possibility of hallucination' proves that naive realism is wrong, meaning that, 'we are never directly acquainted with the fact that a physical object exists'. Furthermore, we are still left without clear criteria to distinguish between veridical perception and hallucinatory perception. Note that when I say 'hallucination', I am referring to 'what we make of what we see', and how this can lead us to hallucinatory perceptions.

On the other hand, I think @Richard B raised a good point on whether we can see this subject from a linguistic view as well.

I just watched "Photographer of Mauthausen" and that focuses on Spanish victims — BitconnectCarlos

Ah, yes that film... It is so bad and full of mediocrity that I forgot its existence.

Oh my goodness, the guanches! I thought they would never be the subject of comments on TPF because it is a main specific thing about the history of Spain. Now that you mentioned them, I have plenty of friends from Canary Island, and they are very proud of their guanche past, or the brief information we have about them. It is funny because Canarian folks call us 'Visigoths' when we discuss with them. On the other hand, the Canary Islands is a very nationalist region in Spain, as well as Catalonia or Basque. But they are only known for tourism and good weather all the year.

They have nationalist - or regional - political parties in the Congress, but they barely get one or two seats at most.

Yeah, they are just two guanches in the Congress.

I agree, and furthermore, that both tragedies are not part of the same story tellers. I bet the victims and tragedy of Israel will be the main plot in the Western media and there will be a good number of productions in cinema and TV. As far as I try to be more cult in cinema, I have discovered that Iranian and Lebanese films are pretty good, but for whatever reason they are hardly seen in our culture. This also happened with Soviet cinema.

For example, Ursu Uzala is a top film by Kurosawa. Yet, what we know the most about this Japanese master are his films about Samurai - a good piece of art, that's a given -. What I do not understand is why Ursu Uzala is not known by the public generally. When I discovered that it was inspired in the Russian context and plot, it rang a bell to me...

On the other hand, although I admit that Nazi Germany and Holocaust films are great - Schindler's List, for instance - it seems that they only focused on Jewish people, while the Holocaust also affected Socialists, homosexuals, gipsies, etc. I never heard of a film about the Holocaust in which these victims are also included.

2. It is awkward to speak about things-in-themselves; — Bob Ross

Hello Bob,

What you argue is pretty interesting, but I don't know to what extent you accept or deny the existence of things-in-themselves. On the other hand, I see your premises and arguments as a subject of Philosophy of Language. I hope I am not on the wrong path to understanding it either.

The mind analyses every stretch of language as some mixture of memorized chunks and rule-governed assemblies.

Last summer, we had a funny debate on the trick word: 'Jack-in-the-box' and its big debate on pluralize such word. I have to quote @Dawnstorm here, because he made a precise analysis and maybe you could be interested in reading it:

The discussion here about "jack-in-the-box" is mostly humorous, but it does show that grammar and thought needn't be the same. You can't deviate too much from the word, or you many people won't recognise it as the plural of a common word.

This thread could in theory lead to a discussion about what grammar is. I come from linguistics, and I've often felt confused about how philosophers use the term grammar. It sometimes feels like philosophers think grammar is the structure of thought, when it's just the structure of language.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/825242

By the way, what @RussellA has previously said in his latest post is very interesting too. This thread is exquisite for rookies like me who wants to keep learning on Philosophy of Language - or metaphysics -.

The problem for Israel is that no one is believing their bullshit anymore, — Tzeentch

:up:

Wearing the symbol of victims of the holocaust while engaging in genocidal crimes against civilians in Gaza. Shameless and vomit-inducing. — Tzeentch

They started to use their propaganda to brainwash the people. I bet we will see a lot of Hollywood films regarding this conflict too.

It is important to highlight that the history and facts are always told by people according to their reality. I wonder what people will think in the next 10 or 20 years. I bet they would think that Palestine deserved it.

If there are actually people who believe that Japan deserved nuclear attacks, I guess they would think the same about the genocide of Gaza...

Yes. 20,000,000 Chinese civilians died during their war with Japan. The Japanese put themselves at the top of the list of the most destructive nations that have ever existed. I'm sure you didn't mean to pass that over without comment. — frank

I agree. The Japanese Empire's behaviour and actions against China, South Korea and the Philippines were disgusting and totally bad. Nonetheless, which nation never had a bloody bellicose past? Whether you like it or not, that's how the past used to be, just before diplomacy and dialogue started to be more effective. In addition, I still maintain my position that Nagasaki and Hiroshima destruction were not really justified at all. It was the first time that a nuclear attack was used on a population. Your arguments are like: 'the ends justify the means'.

Following up your view, my country deserves to be nuked as well. Our past was bloody towards Latin America. Why don't the U.S. wipe us off from the map and do some moral justice to all of those civilisations which disappeared because of us?

Tim, I promise that when I am debating with you, I type my arguments with passion and wholeheartedly. It is not an issue of error of thinking or 'logic', but belief. To be honest, I think it is scary that there are people who actually believe that this is a solution. It doesn't matter if I am wrong for defending Hirohito and his Bushidō Emperor's 'idea' or 'way of living'.
Come on, Tim. Do you really think that it is logical to use a nuclear weapon?

I don't 'wish' to prove that it was terrible to vanish Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the map. It was literally a disaster. This mess goes beyond any human understanding or philosophy. There was a historical war, where one country overused its force to another, and destroyed two cities where innocent people lived. The Japanese accepted the loss because they are an honoured civilisation and understood it was the best way to end the war after the shock. But this doesn't mean that they think that the nuclear attack was the best ending for their military aspirations...
Tim, they play pokemon and watch anime, but the Japanese are not stupid. They are very clever folks.

:up:

Frank, it was a tremendous pity to see a lot of people dying because of a nuclear attack. More than 140,000 civilians died in minutes. Nobody deserves to be nuked by another nation, it doesn't matter the context and circumstances at all. I don't know who is 'wrong' here. Me, for defending Bushidō and Hirohito or you for backing up the nuclear attacks. Yet, what is obvious is that it was a human disaster.

Bottom line, the US wanted to end the war as quickly as possible, for all good reasons, and the Japanese thought they would prefer to die. Which they did on terms that apparently made their own absurdity clear to them. — tim wood

Absurdity; they deserve to die; they are backwards because the Samurai are old-fashioned; they have an Emperor, so they are weird; dropping two nuclear bombs is justified, etc.

Imagine if Hirohito was the one ordering a nuclear attack on California - for example - you would argue what I am arguing right now. No doubt about that. On the other hand, I am not saying that the Japanese army was peaceful and not bloody. Yes, I must admit that their commanders were savage. But as much as I can remember, their commanders were condemned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)

Why no court condemned Truman for letting the American army destroy two cities?

A bit of hypocrisy and cynicism. Don't you think, Tim?

Do you have evidence to the contrary? — flannel jesus

Yes, I have.

Israel maintains a system of religious courts for the Jewish, Muslim, Druze, and Christian populations. These courts have jurisdiction over cases such as marital issues, conversion, and appointment to religious leadership positions.
Divorce of a Jewish couple can only be obtained at the Rabbinical Batei Din. However, if a petition for ancillary matrimonial reliefs, such as custody, support or equitable distribution of property is filed with the Civil Courts before a case for divorce is opened at the Batei Din, then all other marital issues may also be taken by Magistrate Courts sitting as Family Courts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Israel

If the rule of law is shared by religious courts, how can the rights of gay people can be guaranteed?

It is so obvious, right?

If you truly believe that gay people are not pursued by Israel just because of their sexual orientation... oh God, the Western media did a great job manipulating your reality.

Israel is governed by orthodox authorities! Why is this so hard to accept?

OK. According to your opinion, why is the main problem which goes beyond that? Because denying the occupation of an artificial country in someone's territory is just a twisted argument to back up the 'superiority' of some countries over others.

I agree - with your first post -

I disagree. They attacked first. Yes, but with honour and respect, not targeting civil citizens. They bombed military headquarters and zones. But, they were answered by a bloody nuclear attack. For me, it is clear that there was a big disproportion between the attacks. As well as in this current conflict.

I'm OK calling them a second-world country surrounded by shitholes. It doesn't really take away from the point that Israel is a democracy where gays and women aren't flogged and killed by "morality police". Do they have their issues? Of course. Are they ten times better than the surrounding countries? Yes. — RogueAI

Despite that I understand what you attempt to say, I don't like to treat those nations as 'shit holes' because nobody is guilty to be born in a country like West Bank or Lebanon. If we keep treating them in such a way, don't be surprised if they hate the Western world then.
On the other hand, it was Israel the one who settled there, in the middle of the desert, surrounded by countries that had already been there. Now, they have to accept the consequences of their artificial borders for a nation based on wandering people who don't belong to their specific territory, but they 'believe' so because a holy book says whatever in its psalms...

I don't see any difference between Israel and a country ruled by the Quran.

First vs third world = difference in level of technology — Pneumenon

I still do not see why this is relevant at all, and I think you support the occupation and massacre of Israel in Gaza.
Japan has always been more developed than many Western countries, but they were attacked by a nuclear bomb in the most cruel way... so what?

What do you attempt to say? 'The end justifies the means' or similarities.

Israel is a first-world country in a third-world area. — Pneumenon

Whenever I read statements like this, I wonder which are the concepts of 'first world' and 'third world', respectively. Apart from being a notion created by Western civilisation after WWII to label nations in different boxes and causing, in the long run, negative prejudices sorrowfully.

If we continue to use those concepts, the problem will remain, because the sense of your argument is backing up Israel's genocide because it is a 'developed' nation in a 'backward' territory. A territory which was occupied illegally in the first place.

If you check the politics, level of corruption and their system of representatives, Israel is far from being a nation of the 'first world', as you labelled it. Israel is consistently rated low in the Global Peace Index, ranking 134th out of 163 nations for peacefulness in 2022. Marriage and divorce are under the jurisdiction of the religious courts: Jewish, Muslim, Druze, and Christian. The Economist Intelligence Unit rated Israel a "flawed democracy" in 2022. A flawed democracy is a nation where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honoured but may have issues (e.g. media freedom infringement and minor suppression of political opposition and critics). This is how Netanyahu literally works.

According to this data... do you really consider Israel as a first-world country?

My view is that sovereign nations have the right and responsibility to maintain their borders and follow a rational policy on admission. Just because x-millions of South Americans or Africans (and people from elsewhere) want to come to the US or EU doesn't mean they must be welcomed or admitted at all. — BC

I couldn't have said it better, BC. I fully agree with all you posted. I imagine that the U.S. has a big issue regarding the admission of uncontrolled immigration. Well, the same here, but in a smaller land with a weaker economy. Spain has received immigration in Canary Islands recently, and our government decided to 'share' the responsibility of taking care of them amongst the rest of the regions on the peninsula. Some of these regions have serious problems of unemployment and then new people who don't know the language appear and want to live and work as well. It is obvious that a conflict of coexistence is coming...

As you well said, better regulation of the borders is an act of responsibility and not racism or xenophobia towards others.

Isn't that how the killing usually begins? Lots of people object to living together with certain other people. — Vera Mont

But why does this happen at all? It seems that you give up on the close up on the relationship between the Afrikaners and the original ethnics of Africa. It should not have to end badly.

I have to highlight that I see international help and collaboration as reliable while they try to fix their problems. What I say is we shouldn't be that involved in their territory because this would make a sense of colonialism. How can a country like Senegal manage its society independently? I do not know... I wish I had answers to these questions, but what I truly believe is that the United Nations is failing all over the African continent.

And where do you put all the Afrikaners? — Vera Mont

Why should they be removed from Africa? They can live together with the rest of the citizens, ethnics, tribes, people, etc.

It is a sensitive topic, because the notions of 'state' and 'nation' don't fit in some countries of Africa or Oceania, and I agree with you on this point. I tried to say that in some 'territories' of the world, the public administration fails in providing to their citizens the basic needs: water, food, education, safety, etc. And, giving them all of these needs freely, will not help them in the long run, because they will still live in a country where there are dictatorships, and they do not care about people. For a citizen from Senegal - for example - it is more urgent to fix the management of their society rather than giving them food or building their structures with our businesses. This only leads to low self-esteem amongst the African people.

I think the United Nations is not the solution either. It is a Western-like systematic structure which only roots for the USA or European values. I think that the future of Africa can be managed by the African Union. The problems of their continent being managed by themselves without the intervention of foreign nations, which are unknown about the real problems of Africa.

Whether we are morally obligated or not to donate, this is not the solution for countries like Bangladesh. The problem is deeper and more complex than just giving them loans or food supply. They are failed nations, and we should start to help to establish a solid structure to build a rigorous state. A donation would help temporarily, but not in the long term.

enough of your bickering and name-calling. — Jamal

:up:

Okay, let's leave it there.

You still have no clue about what Bushidō was about. To be honest, I am not accusing you directly, because I understand that the Western culture and media made a great effort to manipulate us to 'love' our world unconditionally, and disrespect other cultures. Whether you believe in my words or not, corruption didn't exist in Japan until the Westerns polluted all over their beautiful country with our stupid 'modernity'.

You are defending in your arguments the message that it was a 'success' for the Japanese to get rid of their ancestry, when it is clearly the opposite. I hope you don't back up the Hiroshima and Nagasaki destruction either... Because it seems that you defend the end of the Empire of Japan at all costs. You accused me of defending the supposed genocide of backward civilisations like the Maya one, but at the same time you are fine with vanishing Samurai or Edō/Heian people. Hmm... Contradiction or hypocrisy? Pick one.

If the world had a bit of Bushidō, it would be a better place to live in. Loyalty, honour, rightness, etc. All these values were lost because of politicians like you. You criticize the way of Samurai when you don't have a clue about...

Don't be an ignorant in a public place... it is disgusting.

You are right, I need therapy for my anxiety, but would you mind if you pay me the costs with your tax income? Come on mate, therapy is expensive, pay me the pills and all costs with your money as a good comrade/'contributor'.

Oh, these bloody socialists always use their stupid 'morally' superior argument... it makes me sick.

Quid pro quo.

I get banned for being a 'fascist' - according to your own hateful speech towards Japan and Spain - and you get banned for being an ignorant buffoon.

We have some members here who mix up nationalism with fascism and then with Bushidō culture. But don't expect that much from members who root for syndicalism and expropriation of private property in the 21st century. If I am not wrong, one of the main guidelines of this site is to maintain the quality of the posts. I would rather be banned for being a 'fascist' rather than being ignorant. Agree, dear moderators?

After Dark, Haruki Murakami

I really admire you for your passion and your ideals, universeness. I have seen this vein of yours in other exchanges too.) — Alkis Piskas

Jesus Christ...
:vomit:

So that's why I think these two terms not only are not synonymous but actually exclusive. — TheMadMan

Interesting post.

But in the last paragraph, it is where I disagree a bit. Actually, I think they are synonyms. When I searched on Google, I experienced a loop regarding the words.

The Oxford Dictionary says that 'bravery' is a noun, and simply defines it as: 'the quality of being brave'. And says that a synonym is courage. When I searched for information about the latter, I found the following information:' courage is the ability to do something dangerous, or to face pain or opposition, without showing fear. For example: It takes courage to sing in public'.

I think this definition is adjustable for what you did consider as 'fearlessness', right?

Fearlessness and bravery are synonyms. However, they sometimes have different nuances. Fearlessness is often centered around facing difficulty or danger without or despite fear. Bravery can be associated with daring.

If they were exclusive to each other, the correct word to refer to would be 'coward' or act 'cowardly'.

The alternative is too difficult i.e. being healthy (fitness, diet, sleep, socialising). If everyone on Earth were even slightly better, these cultural indulences would disappear, but everyone would appear robotic and liveless. — Sebrof

Good point. :up: