The idea was that our ticket derives from a mandate or charge that we have received from the community on account of our importance — Leontiskos

That’s your idea.

We receive +1 shelter because we are "important", just that. I do not interpret this premise as mandatory or an accessory of the two main options of the dilemma. I interpret that the +1 shelter was given randomly in the present scenario.

On the other hand: let's say we use your premise and we say that this +1 shelter is mandatory. What would be your choice and why has it changed from the original position?

Folks go without, it's the norm. — LuckyR

It is the norm, yes. But the context gets serious when your mother is involved. You would not speak about "folks go without" because your sense of attachment to a beloved member would make you think otherwise or at least more seriously. I think this is the "dilemma" that @Paul proposed. The context changes fully when a mother is included.

IDK, I don't think a bunker full of five-year-olds has good survival odds in the long term. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree.

Hello again Bob.

Correct me if I am wrong, but then it sounds like you are simply completely disagreeing with me, no? What are we in agreement about then? — Bob Ross

I agree with your explanation of the truth. I think here is where we agree definitively. You explained that, as much as I interpret truth, it seems that I see truth as a synonymous of being. Well, this is true, you know what is - more or less - on my side in this debate. I wish I had better grammar skills because I am aware that I am not expressing myself properly and maybe this is why you are confused.

I will try it again:

I think that the basic element to understand truth is to understand "objective" and "subjective" previously, because I am considering that "truth" depends on one or the other. "Objective" is where metaphysical or epistemological questions depend on objects. "Subjective" is where they depend on the or a subject. Where objects exist independently of subjects, existence and knowledge are also independent of subjects. "Subjective" implies dependence on what may be relative, uncertain, idiosyncratic, whimsical, and arbitrary.

With those premises, I consider truth objectively as much as existence and knowledge. Otherwise, we can make the mistake of being arbitrary or idiosyncratic. We cannot achieve the truth if subjectiveness kicks in. I said "hallucination" in my previous posts, but we can use other kind of flaw subjective interference. For example: what is truth for you, it could be fake for me. Nonetheless, we have to accept the premise that there is something out there which is real. Whether it is true or false doesn't affect the being.

A lot of this depends on why I was granted a +1 in the first place. — Leontiskos

Why would your decision depend on knowing that specific data?

I think each of us would save our respective mothers. Love and a sense of family belonging is stronger than "utilitarian" choices. Whenever our family - or loved ones - are at risk, our sense of "rationality" falls apart.
I personally think that there is not a dilemma at all. Option B is "A healthy 20 year old acquaintance who you generally like but you're not close to."
I, myself, interpret that the person of option B is just a stranger. I do not care if he is 20 years old and healthy. If it is not close to me, he will not be above my mother in terms of priority.

Does your choice change if B is a friend, or a stranger? Do they have to be a best friend? — Paul

No. It will not change my decision if my mother still be one of the options.

Would your choice actually involve any ethical considerations at all, or would it be a selfish decision which you'd attempt to invent a post hoc ethical justification for? — Paul

I must admit that involves selfish decision. I save my mother because of the familiar attachment. Maybe this is not so "ethical" and some can consider this as a pure act of selfishness.

could you please refresh my memory as to what, then, you are disagreeing with in my assessment of truth? — Bob Ross

We disagree in the assessment of truth because I interpret this concept objectively, without any interference of mind. I didn't say it previously, but I believe that truth doesn't depend on the value of mind or conciousness. Truth is a reality that does exist and "is there", doesn't matter if we are percievers or not. Nonetheless, you consider truth as a "process of uncovering, which requires an uncoverer (mind) and the covered (mind-independent)."
Here is where it lies our discrepancies. I interpret truth objectively but subjectively (If I am not wrong...)

For example, if it is just about determining if one is perceiving something illusory or non-illusory, then one could never determine the concept of concepts (or the concept of anything) because it is non-perceptive. — Bob Ross

I understand. But this is a problem that relies on us, not the truth itself. Again, "determining the concept of concepts" is a task inherent in our knowledge because we need to expand our criteria. But I do not see why that's necessary to uncover the truth, when perception can lead us to artificial illusory "truths"

I totally agree with your post, but…

I think most European progressives now see Britain (probably England in particular) as a rather backwards and regressive place, — universeness

No. Trust me when I say that most people still see the UK (or just England) as a progressive economy and nation. Yes, Brexit was a mistake, but it doesn't imply that British society went backwards afterwards. There are other nations in this world that are worse than the UK, just see Latin America and Africa.

The British and Spanish will forever pay for their legacy of colonialism. — universeness

This is the point where I always disagree with you, but I respect your opinion. Whether the Spanish and British should "pay" for whatever is not a problem/issue of modern societies. There are worse things to debate about and find some solutions. For example, Climate change and the civil war of Sudan.

I wonder how many people in the world still respect all things American? — universeness

I respect American citizens though. We should not mix up politics/politicians/bureaucracy with the country and its people. I would be mad if someone disrespects "Spanish things" because of the incompetence of our politicians and the 2017 Catalonia conflict. I think one thing is not linked to the other.

Imagine if I been told, "hey do not visit London or Glasgow because of Brexit"
This sounds stupid as hell, right?

Hello again Bob!

then wouldn’t that entail you agree with my definition? Or are you only partially agreeing with me? — Bob Ross

Yes, I am partially agree with you.



The problem with my premises or Furmeton’s arguments is that it proves too much. Taken with sufficient seriousness, it is an argument against the possibility of knowledge in general, not just against naive realism. Fumerton cannot recover from the wider implications of such an argument, and his own honest conclusions are that scepticism is difficult to refute, that he doesn't see how we can do so, and that perhaps a philosopher shouldn't adopt some sort of program to refute scepticism.

Real objects are phenomenal, as we ordinarily treat them; and the things that appear are, most of the time, real. That is just the point.
I personally believe that this is common sense. Objects, themselves, are real and we should perceive them objectively. How important is it to perceive them subjectively if we can make the mistake of misinterpretation?

Yet, the big issue is to discern when there is a real object and when there isn't. 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 (in other words, whether there is always one when there is supposed to be other).

I, myself, was never aware of the significance of umbrella concepts either. As you said, Christianity and Islam are good examples. I never thought about Capitalism or Socialism because I considered them as political/ economic terms, not philosophical.

I think umbrella terms are used wrong. But I am not anyone to criticize others because I used to use them wrong too. Umbrella terms have some categories and depend on the field we are debating about. For example, it is not the same as clearly understanding "Islam" and defining "objective and subjective" (if we consider the latter as an umbrella term. Maybe some would disagree with me)

On the other hand, I think that having present umbrella terms can allow users to be more respectful with some topics: religion, for example. Most of the threads are insulting but I bet that all of those who says "Christ and God are not special" cannot define or understand Christianity at all.

The Ancient Order of English Majors endorses grammar discussions in any thread on any topic. One must exploit the teachable moment. — BC

I will keep in mind this principle and try to improve my grammar skills!

You should just worry about the fluffernutters or whoever it is that rules the Netherlands. And what kind of a name is that for a country, anyway? — T Clark

On behalf of Spain and Charles V, I am sorry @Benkei for this.

Note my correction of BC. — T Clark

I see. You consider “Americans” as the object of the preposition. This is more interesting for me than Trump himself, and I want to know what @BC thinks about your answer, but I do not want to get off topic and I am aware that this is not the correct thread to discuss these things.

Hey Clarky, thanks for teaching me lessons on English grammar. I appreciate it.

But this is a contradiction in terms: you can’t have a perspectiveless perspective, nor a non-perceiver perception. — Bob Ross

Hello again Bob!

I agree with your position. I sound contradictory trying to find out a definition. I will try again: I think "perspectiveless" is not what I was thinking about when I was typing my answer. I believe that truth is self-evident, and I do not know how extensive mind-dependence is on it.

I must admit that it is difficult for me to express myself properly, but the paper I shared yesterday explains better what I want to mean: "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?"
Then, it seems to be interesting for me the appreciate that Richard A. Fumerton did: "we are never directly acquainted with the fact that a physical object exists..."

I follow Fumerton's argument. 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, what? :eyes:

What did I say wrong that you didn't understand me?

I understand. Thanks for your kindness, Jamal.

Nearly 500 pages of this deep philosophical substantive thread. Hey, instead of discussing like a Ping-Pong game, we should discuss why this was never put in The Lounge.

An "unmanifest mind" – how do we know it "objective exists"? — 180 Proof

Why we should know anyway? objective exists both separately and independently from us. It doesn't matter if we "know" or "are aware" if it does exist or not.

The sons of bitches should leave the US politics to us Americans. "Us" is the object of the preposition "to". — BC

Interesting.

Thanks BC. I learned a new lesson on English grammar this morning, while I am taking my breakfast. :up:

Unless by “perceived objectively” you mean a “perspectiveless perceiver of reality”? — Bob Ross

Exactly.

It sounds like, and correct me if I am wrong, you are using ‘truth’ and ‘being’ interchangeably; — Bob Ross

No, I use them as different terms as clearly. On one hand, we have "being" that needs a precise definition of its concept. Every object is a "being" and we just define them to introduce them into our vocabulary with the aim of understanding our "reality".
On the other hand, we have “truth”, which also needs a precise definition of the concept. I agree with you in this point, when you interpret it as “It is the activity of uncovering what is, which is not what is itself.”

Apart from those premises, I still defend that one of the "weaknesses" of truth is hallucinations or the abuse of subjectiveness when we are defining. Sometimes, we can all be wrong when we "uncover" what it is.

Or as Augustine puts it: "all truth is God's truth." The Father is the universal ground, so all truths trace back to God (and are known through the Son/Logos, by the Spirit). — Count Timothy von Icarus

I didn't know that definition of Aquinas. I personally think that it is simplistic and drives us to reductionism. I would understand it in a theological version but not from a metaphysical perspective.

St. Thomas believed, with Aristotle, that universal natures or essences are real and present in individual beings. I guess this is called "Realism"

While Aquinas might find some ground in Aristotle's metaphysics to quibble over the implications of this, it is quite obvious, for instance, from Aristotle's writings that his God works no miracles or in any other way abridges the regularity of the laws of nature -- something required by Christian theology.

On the other hand, I think we should mention William of Ockham who argued that only individual beings are real and that universals do not have objective existence, etc.

What is objective vs subjective? :
Here's a trick to help you remember the difference between subjective and objective. Subjectivity is self-centered and based on speculations, sentiments, and experiences. Objectivity is outward-focused and based on observable facts and data that can be proven true. — Gnomon

Wow! Thanks for sharing, Gnomon. That’s the definition of objective and subjective I urgently need.
I am currently having a debate on this matter with @Bob Ross and we are trying to find out a definition of both concepts. Your post made it clearer and helped me to have a more precise comprehension. :up:

Interesting! I didn’t really follow plato’s definition: how exactly are you defining truth then? Is it a platonic form for you? — Bob Ross

I don't know if it is a platonic form of definition. But I would define truth as "the reality itself when it is perceived objectively".

For you, it sounds like, perhaps, truth is just being, which is the light, so to speak, of reality (as plato thought?)? — Bob Ross

Exactly.

What I tried to argue is that truth or reality are independent selves. They do exist there objectively, but the significance and definitions are mind-dependent. Here is where I agree with you. Yet, we can end up in a complex situation regarding the interpretation of truth: hallucination. The latter is part of our "subjectiveness" more than we wish and then, can elaborate biased definitions and interpretations while the reality and truth are just there.

It is true that there are some concepts which, without mind perception, cannot exist. For example: colors. But there are also other objects that already existed even before our own existence. For example, the universe. I think we apply a lot of "inter-subjectivity" in terms of defining both groups. My conclusion is that the universe is a reality or truth that exists independently. It doesn't need to be linked to our minds to make an "existence".

Empiricists cut through the issue by reducing the objects of perception to the perceptions themselves. This would make it difficult to define what a hallucination even is, or how my perceptions relate to those of other people, but it certainly is a matter of pushing Empiricist principles to their logical conclusion. Berkeley and Hume are good at that.
George Berkeley's motto for his idealist philosophical position that nothing exists independently of its perception by a mind except minds themselves.

Human or divine perception?

According to Berkeley, the mind of God always perceives everything. Unlike God’s perception of his own perfect ideas, human perceptions are imperfect and so provide incomplete or unclear knowledge of reality.
Nonetheless, Berkeley’s ’esse is percipi’ has been criticized for implying epistemological solipsism, the main argument being that different minds cannot harbor numerically one and the same idea.

I cannot say that truth is objective, because without a subject it cannot exist; however, I cannot, equally so, claim that it is subjective (for the truth is surely not equivalent to the asserted being but, rather, its correspondence to reality). — Bob Ross

Hello Bob Ross!

I cannot say that truth is subjective either. But you claimed that reality is mind-dependent and thus, there can be no asserted being without a subject. If I didn't understand you mistakenly, your point here is that, despite the fact that truth is not objective or subjective, it cannot really exist without our minds.

Well, I personally think that truth can be objective.

I have another definition of truth from Plato: “This reality, then, that gives their truth to the objects of knowledge and the power of knowing to the knower, you must say is the idea of the good, and you must conceive it as being the cause of knowledge and of truth in so far as known.”

A year ago, I read an interesting paper by Richard A. Fumerton called Metaphysical and Epistemological Problems of Perception. He asked to the participants the following question: How do we know when there is and when there is not a real object? If you are interested, here is the link to the thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12945/hallucination-and-truth/p1

I agree with his points that “real objects are phenomenal, as we ordinarily treat them; and the things that appear are, most of the time, real.”
Yet, this assertions can be contradicted by your arguments and I thought it was interesting to share them in your thread. I personally think that truth exists objectively but we even interpret wrongly due to hallucinations.
Conclusion of what I try to argue: reality does exist objectively but we manipulate it through our mind and that’s why we never really know if something is “real”

I look at threads based on topic not popularity and assume literally everyone else does too … why wouldn’t they? — I like sushi

Well, you are referring to your own criteria. You can't really know what the mind of the rest is or what they are attracted by.

I simply do not understand why, depending on the person, one thread gets more relevance than the other. It is just strange to me. As you said, people chime in threads because of the topic, like if they were acting objectively. I disagree, using the arguments I mentioned previously. I have evidences that - not exactly but similar - threads about ethics or Philosophy of Language get more attention depending on who the author is, not the content itself.

I understand. The participation of many users in a single thread can be chaotic but the line of importance/attraction is blurred in these cases. Maybe it is not your case, but whenever you login into TPF and you see some threads with a considerable number of replies, the users quickly think that those threads seem to be interesting while others with, lack of answers/participation are not. Well, I completely disagree in this point, but this is how this forum works. It is obvious that whenever you start a discussion you wish to have some acknowledgement or feedback at least.

So, you need to get some participants and replies. What is the clue of posting a thread and not receiving any replies at all?

Sometimes it seems as if it is not the OP that generates the interest so much, but the first 2 or 3 responses. — Tom Storm

I agree. But here we end up in the same dilemma. If one thread doesn't get one or five replies at least, it will not be considered as "interesting" or "philosophical" and then, it will disappear from the pages of this site. For example, this thread of Alkis remained silent for two months. I was lucky to discover it, but who knows if I never wrote the first reply. We wouldn't be debating this morning when it is clear a good OP, even more clear and substantive than others that always remain in the main page.

I disagree with Focus and Participation. — I like sushi

OK. Why?

I know that some of you don't act in the way I refer to in my arguments. But you are just a few. What I tend to argue is some facts about why some discussions get more relevance or "activity". I still maintain that who the author is is very important rather than the content of the OP itself. To be honest, I have always tried to publish substantive threads with the aim of having exchanges. Nonetheless, other users, - more famous or original than me - posted similar threads but they got hundreds of replies. Why did this happen?

I think @Leontiskos explained pretty good. The threads which do not stick to the rules provided by the moderators are the ones that receive more attention paradoxically.

But then I noticed that almost no one is following those guidelines, and the OPs that do follow them receive much fewer replies. This doesn't mean that the "research" model for OPs is suboptimal, but that model probably produces more pondering and silent listening, which in turn produces ambiguous silence. — Leontiskos

Good point.

How well does this translate to a philosophy forum? For one, there is no requirement for someone to pretend to be interested in a thread or to say something in order to count as participating. In addition, there is no expectation that members know enough about a topic to have something to say. — Fooloso4

I am curious about this fact. I think there could be two groups of members: one group where the people don't take part in discussions because they don't have enough data in the discussion itself (5 % or 10 % of the overall) and those who don't answer because you are not friends with (90 % or 95 %)
The experience and two years and a half on this site make me end up in this conclusion. I guess my discussions are not that complex, sometimes I had a good number of replies, others not. But they are threads by which you can express yourself so easily. Most of the users around here can maintain arguments.

Absolutely right, nobody has the aim to participate in a thread, but what I feel is that there is not equity. The level of interaction of a thread doesn't depend on if it is clear or attractive but who is the author.

Right, but what is the connection between activity and importance? It is easy to post something that will generate a lot of response, but this can be a poor measure of the significance of the thread. — Fooloso4

I agree that activity is not necessarily connected with the importance of a thread, but when any of them doesn't get any reply at all, it seems that it lacks relevance. It has happened to me a few times. After posting my OP and seeing literally zero replies, my first impression is that my thread is bad or not important.
Whether it is a poor measure of significance or not, it affects you anyway. Because, as I explained, a thread depends on the number of replies and it is incomprehensible why some appear on the front of the page and others (more interesting) don't.
For example, the Donald Trump and Ukraine Crisis threads should be put in The Lounge, because these are not philosophical but political. Yet, they hold a lot of activity.

I was not aware that there are any. But famous or not, I agree that some members grab attention and others go unnoticed or are deliberately ignored. Those who are ignored certainly play some role in this. — Fooloso4

Exactly. This is what I was trying to say. :up:

Added: I am speaking in general terms, not about the author of this thread, with whom I have had some interesting discussions. — Fooloso4

@Alkis Piskas is an original thinker and a good person, indeed.

To remain silent may be an important form of participation. One in which one thinks about what has been said rather than thinking about what to say. — Fooloso4

Interesting thought. You are right in this point.

But I think it is complex to apply it on this site where the activity depends on the number of replies that each thread can get. If a thread doesn't have enough answers, it can end up in absolute forgetfulness, passing one page and another, and then disappearing in the endless information stock of this forum.

This is where I guess the issue starts. The number of replies in each thread doesn't depend on how hard you worked on your thread. There are other facts that can condition your OP: if you are not "friends" with others; if you are not likable; if you don't talk about religion and AI, etc. The example of Alkis is excellent. I personally believe that this thread is interesting but it remained without participation for two months. Why did this happen?
I bet that if one of the famous and common "philosophers" of this site put the same OP, they would have had multiple answers!

What I noticed is that some remain silent because they just ignore the users, not because they are thinking about what I posted.

But it's not a thread. It's an article and that's why I have posted it in the 'Article Submissions' section.
Yet one would expect at least a simple acknowledgent ... — Alkis Piskas

Yes, I am aware that it is not a "thread" at all, because it is posted in "article submissions" with the aim of having some exchanges and maybe not a deep philosophical debate.
Yet, I don't understand why this didn't have replies or feedback. I share the same feeling as Clarky. I don't remember seeing your post on the main page. Otherwise, I promise I would have posted something.

This is why I prefer to use the INBOX for personal exchanges. From the amount of chit-chats I see in here, I believe most people here never use it. — Alkis Piskas

I agree. Well said.

I believe that too. People like more to discuss with "friends", independently of how interesting and useful a topic and its description by the PO is. — Alkis Piskas

Exactly. :up:

Hey, Javi... Thanks for bringing this back up. — T Clark

You are welcome, friend. :up:

Quality response. — Pantagruel

Indeed.

What a good thread, Alkis! I do not understand why you didn't have any reply at all. You explained pretty well what each thread should have. I wish each one could stick to these standards. I think it is not only good for keeping this site with quality threads but also for the moderators in general, because - sometimes - they lack of having arguments on discern which thread deserves to be on the main page, in The Lounge or even removed.

Participation: It is desirable that the discussion has as many participants as possible. For that reason, they should not be dominated by just a few participants. Side conversations tend to be distracting and should be avoided. — Alkis Piskas

Well, this point never gets taken seriously. I think each thread would have more or less participation depending on the author, not the content itself. I bet that even some members do not read the content of the threads just because of who is the user that wrote it. I think it is unfair, but we have both debated this issue a lot...