talent, physique, intelligence, inheritance, education, power, social standing, opportunity, wealth, or personal morality. Nevertheless, every individual from the lowest to the highest socially is the source of values, and as such is infinitely valuable to themselves. and this is the source of the equality that founds the moral brotherhood of man. for a Christian - — unenlightened

And given the above, for me, one of the important aspects of the Western tradition in more recent times (contested though it might be in some parts) is that the state can and has played a key role in helping to level out some of those differences by providing or subsidising medical care, education, training and housing for those less privileged citizens, particularly those on the margins.

Colonialism is not totally a bad thing.
The Chinese girls' Foot binding for 1,000 years ended because of Colonialism. — YiRu Li

Yeah, I guess that makes up for slavery, robbery, barbarity and genocide.

No.

:up:

So physics is not capable of giving an account of the simplest social interactions. — Banno

Do you believe there is a meaningful distinction between a physicalist and a naturalist?

The naturalist, presumably has a broader scope than a physicalist and will point to the notion that everything can be explained by natural laws and phenomena (as opposed to the supernatural), not necessarily limited to the physical - other disciplines beyond physics which would incorporate social interactions and codified behaviors, rituals, anthropology, biology, etc.

I guess the upshot of this might be that if we can confirm that there is an afterlife or a Platonic realm, then these become known as natural.

Why do you ask? — wonderer1

Just that for physicalists (and secular humanists) I know, they would argue that they hold to methodological naturalism and not philosophical (or metaphysical) naturalism. The latter being a truth claim about reality they believe is unwarranted, the former being a more (shall we say) pragmatic approach to philosophical enquires. I'm pretty sure AC Grayling puts it similarly although he calls himself a naturalist rather than a physicalist.

Don't some philosophers suggest that this comes down to the distinction between philosophical naturalism or methodological naturalism?

Well, I guess behavior is physical. We choose to follow a convention or choose not to be fined. Brain activity/chemicals, etc. Then we physically apply the brakes. We physically wait for the light to change. We accelerate when the lights are green.

Your suggestion takes the convention of stopping for red as a non-physical behavioral convention, right?

But how is this different to a dog being trained to bark for food? Isn't the causal chain which lead to the behavior determined by physical processes which can be explained by physics?

Perhaps you are saying that intentionality can't be explained by physics?

The simplest and cleanest way to understand physicalism is as the idea that only the stuff described in physics texts is true. — Banno

I don't disagree but can I ponder this with you for a bit?

My understanding of physicalism is that it tends to deny the existence of non-physical substances or entities and proposes that all phenomena, including mental states and consciousness, can be reduced to or explained by physical processes.

Physicalism can't explain how traffic lights work. — Banno

Perhaps not when seen from one perspective, but is it not the case that traffic lights and the convention that we stop can be explained by physical processes? Behaviors are physical. A code of conduct (which is what traffic lights amount to) is surely reducible to physical processes?

I always read what you post. I can't claim to always understand it, but I am getting better. :wink:

What Nietzsche calls the ‘aesthetic phenomenon’ is disclosed in the concentrated dealings with itself of a decentered subjectivity set free from everyday conventions of perceiving and acting. Only when the subject loses itself, when it sheers off from pragmatic experience in space and time, and when the illusions of habitual normality have collapsed- only then does the world of the unforeseen and the astonishing become open”. — Number2018

I wonder what that looks like outside of a paragraph - how does one do this in life?

Evan Thompson writes: — Joshs

Ultimately, what we call “reality” is so deeply suffused with mind- and language-dependent structures that it is altogether impossible to make a neat distinction between those parts of our beliefs that reflect the world “in itself” and those parts of our beliefs that simply express “our conceptual contribution.” The very idea that our cognition should be nothing but a re-presentation of something mind-independent consequently has to be abandoned. — Joshs

Just checking is this Thompson? I always thought this quote was credited to Dan Zahavi, (2008) Internalism, Externalism, and Transcendental Idealism. Synthese 160:355-374

Will you tell your kids or students the wrong things? — YiRu Li

Not sure what you mean with this question but we all pass on incorrect information, prejudices, bigotries and dubious values to children and students all the time. Often we don't know we are doing this. And families often suppress secrets and scandals from each other, particularly the children.

Sometimes the parents and teachers went through wars or countless difficult times, but they still did their best to keep the knowledge and passed it to their kids and students. — YiRu Li

Such knowledge is generally a mix of facts, subjective values, myths and the usual prejudices of time and place.

Are there any westerner ancestors who passed things to your generation nowadays and you know it is valuable? — YiRu Li

I don't use this frame of reference. But obviously we have cultural, political and social practices and values we have inherited, some of which are valued. Including values themselves. But as a principle, I don't revere anything based on tradition. Much of what we inherit from previous generations is not valuable - things like misogyny, homophobia, colonisation, various approaches to capitalism.

The alternative is to avoid holding to substance ontologies altogether, which is my way of dealing with the issue. — Janus

Nice. Can I borrow this?

"All"? Are you sure? — Beverley

I think so. But there may be one or two who don't - let me know who they are. :wink:

We were talking about a claim about a Chinese historical account of people using a specific medicine and living for 100 years, with no sign of ageing. A reference was made to some historical records as proof (which incidentally were not produced), and, regardless, amount to an appeal to tradition fallacy. The rest of this meandering discussion was a generalist account of whether any country's stories about itself can be entirely trusted.

I would say that as much truth is told about a country's past as is told about a person's past. — Beverley

I don't know why you would say this. Many countries are outright liars and cheats in the way most people are not. But would such a claim not depend upon, the country, the individual and the alleged facts we were exploring with either of them? For instance, I would think China's official account of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests would not match the Australian account. I would not think the white Australian account of Aboriginal history would match the historical accounts of the Aboriginal people. Etc, etc. When we are talking about individual's stories we rarely encounter mass murder, intimidation, suppression of opposition views, censorship and fabricated history, the way we do so often with nations, right?

...but I love the debate and hearing other people's views on things. :) — Beverley

:up: Debate helps keep the skin toned and clear. :wink:

Civilizations and cultures also exist for a lot longer than governments. — Beverley

All governments take the credit for work that came before them. All governments are in the business of fostering and restating the significance of cultural myths. And sometimes cultures hold myths above and beyond whatever government is in power. So none of what you say is inconsistent with the point made.

But I am talking about what is most likely, and that is that the history of China, as it has been recorded, is as true as any history (I suppose, including what exactly we all did yesterday!) — Beverley

Do any countries tell the truth about their past? I would doubt it. They all go with impressions and political and social expediency. And the idea that there is one accurate account of history is itself farcical.

But really, you would need to take each truth claim from history and hold it up against scholarship in each relevant field. We don't have the time or opportunity to do this here.

To my mind, governments have no power over civilization and culture, since governments are controlled by the people, and the people make civilizations and culture. — Beverley

Seems a bit simplistic. The role of media and corporate power play a big role in this space and in the end it’s not about who makes civilisation, it’s about who tells the story and what they choose to accept, embellish or suppress.

I think people are poor because they didn't use their potential enough.
It's a potential issue. — YiRu Li

That seems to me to be a standard right wing politics talking point which I think does disadvantaged people a substantial disservice. It's what we used to call, 'blame the victim.' The reality is society is structured to reward some people and shit on others. Many people who are poor and marginalized work very hard but never get ahead no matter how hard they try. People face barriers because of who they are. Factors such as disability, mental ill health, trauma, physical ill health, etc, require community resources and supports to overcome. You can't make them go away with right wing talking points. :wink: I say this as someone who has worked in the field of disadvantage, addiction and mental ill health for over 30 years. People die because they can't afford housing and health care.

Does the above make sense to you?
Can I still use 'inequality' to say it? — YiRu Li

I think you are asking several quesions bundled into one category.

For me the question you are asking involves how people manage psychologically and what the responsibility of a society is towards those on the margins and those who suffer.

How can we educate people, so they can be happy with their position? — YiRu Li

As someone with social justice principles I would never educate people to be happy with their situation. I wouldn't be prefer mechanisms in place through social policy to help lift people out of poverty.

'born into a rich family or poor family' is 'inequality' to you? — YiRu Li

Yes

[

If a person is so sad because she can't have kids.
Is this 'have' & 'not have', 'inequality' to you or 'difference' to you — YiRu Li

For me that's difference. Young and old is difference. Ugly and beautiful is difference. But one might say figuratively in English that such a difference can lead to unequal treatment and unequal experiences of life.

Economic, social and political inequality generally have social policy solutions. Being ugly in a world where beauty has clear advantages and is celebrated is probably best deal with psychologically.

Not being able to have kids? Adoption or a psychological solution.

I ended up as a metaphysical idealist – somebody who thinks that the whole of reality is mental in essence. It is not in your mind alone, not in my mind alone, but in an extended transpersonal form of mind which appears to us in the form that we call matter. Matter is a representation or appearance of what is, in and of itself, mental processes.
— Bernardo Kastrup, magazine interview

Now I think that is different from saying that 'the external world is made of mental substance'. I think that use of the term 'substance' arises from the translation of the original Greek 'ouisia', which was found in both Plato and Aristotle, into the Latin 'substantia', and thence into the English 'substance'. — Wayfarer

Interesting. I can't quite see the distinction so far. I got from Kastrup that he believes there is only mentation. All of reality is mind-at-large (his version of Schop's Will) and we are all dissociated alters springing from that cosmic consciousness, the way tributaries spring from a river.

I thought I already identified 'inequality' as

e.g. good <-> evil, rich <-> poor, beautiful <-> ugly, young <-> old, high <-> low, correct <-> wrong, have <-> not have, strong <-> weak, left <-> right, subjective <-> objective, absolute <-> relative, Life <-> Death — YiRu Li

Ok. So that is not about inequality. Maybe disparity of qualities/attributes?

Anyway, I wonder if the term "inequality" is throwing people off. This term is very suggestive of social and especially economic inequality in English, whereas I think the concept she is going for is "difference". — hypericin

:up: Yes. Difference. Makes more sense.

For example, if we feel getting birth in a rich family is not equal getting birth in a poor family. It is inequality. And this feeling of inequality, is the issue of the world. — YiRu Li

Now we are back to actual inequality. Answers - democratic socialism, robust social policy.

He is hypericin.
We posted this question together. He is the cohost. — YiRu Li

What? A cohost? So is the OP question yours or not? Are you are real person? :wink:

If you posted the question together why did he respond to the question with this?

This is a very broad view of "inequality".

What you call "inequality", I call "perception", and "thought". — hypericin

Something seems off to me.

If you are unable to define inequality then this is a pointless conversation.

I know when talking about inequality, in western philosophy, political philosophy is more famous.
Glad you'd like to identify it.
I'll let my friend reply to you.
He knows better about philosophy. — YiRu Li

Huh? Who is your friend?

You asked the question in your OP so you must have a definition, right? Why else would you pose the question?


You asked a question about inequality- you do not need philosophy to define it. Surely you had something in mind you can share?

I am not American and don't live in America. I am referring to human history whether Chinese, Swedish or Australian.

But let's come back to the question above.

Chinese has 5,000 of years history.
We still can easily read any documents from 5,000 years ago.
It's not legends, it's history. — YiRu Li

No. As Henry Ford use to say 'History is bunk'. History is written by the victors, is full of myths, legends, half-truths and self-glorifying factoids.

For Chinese medicine to be true or not, this probably needs using your own body to try it. No one can tell you. :sweat: — YiRu Li

I was not talking about Chinese medicine - I was talking about whether legends were true. E.g., People living to 100 without showing signs of aging.

I'm asking you as the writer of the OP what do you mean by inequality?

What is inequality. Can you define it so I understand where you are coming from?

The best answer so far may be this.

Democratic socialism would be one answer. — Wayfarer

But I am till waiting to understand what your definition of inequality is because I fear we are talking about different things.

and eating Cheetos to moving to the recliner watching cartoons and eating potato chips. — Fooloso4

Given your background in the classics, I recommend you swap these for figs and dates. The cartoons are less problematic, Looney Tunes and Rocky and Bullwinkle, say, might well pass for philosophy in some parts.

Chinese medicine says about 5,000 years ago, everyone lived one hundred years without showing the usual signs of aging. — YiRu Li

There are lots of legends in many different cultures about all kinds of golden eras. Are they true? Probably not.

But I don’t think I know what you mean when you say inequality. Perhaps you can list a few examples?

Ha! I guess for those untrained in philosophy the delineation of what is physical is difficult. I like your earlier reference to grammar.

I’m assuming (perhaps wrongly) that the argument may be made that traffic laws are created by minds behaving according to natural physical processes - solving problems, expressing preferences.

I'm curious and forgive the awkward wording - is it hard to get a useful reading of Nietzsche? How often do you think his work is taken into 'bad reading' territory?

I can't make much sense out of Nietzsche's writing - I find the often histrionic prose style close to unreadable, even the Kaufman translation (but that's on me).

One main difference I guess is that Rand attaches her notions in a more traditional milieu. Basically these people are just idealizations of the "Great Men" of history.. Where Nietzsche might entertain a Napoleon, she emphasizes industrialists and the like. To me it's just a different mode of the same idea. Nietzsche's can be applied more universally perhaps.. — schopenhauer1

I think I agree with this. Jack London was another writer who sometimes thought of himself as a Nietzschean, but his account was via Herbert Spencer fused to what he called Nietzsche's 'blonde beast'. London's own journey from homelessness to best selling author of muscular fiction he often dramatized as a journey of personal self-transformation (which it was). London was probably more in the Rand mold, although he (ironically) saw himself as a socialist.

Nietzsche was right. I won't take the time to tell you who Nietzsche was, but he was right. The world belongs to the strong - to the strong who are noble as well and who do not wallow in the swine-trough of trade and exchange. The world belongs to the true nobleman, to the great blond beasts, to the noncompromisers, to the 'yes-sayers.”

― Jack London, Martin Eden

Perhaps a step form London to Rand was HL Mencken, who was also a Nietzsche enthusiast:

He (Nietzsche) believed that there was need in the world for a class freed from the handicap of law and morality, a class acutely adaptable and immoral; a class bent on achieving, not the equality of all men, but the production, at the top, of the superman.”

― H.L. Mencken, The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche

Otherwise, Plato was right, and nobody wants that. — Banno

That made me laugh.

the evidence points strongly to non-physical mental content driving these unfortunate conditions — Mark Nyquist

Can you provide some references or details for this?

So the only choice is between the irrationalism of physicalism and the irrationalism of mysticism and fundamentalists? — Banno

It was a joke. A summary of what we often seem to find in these threads... Hence the :razz: emoji.

:lol: Of course you're now providing an opening for the ersatz mystics and fundamentalists. If physicalism can't account for our entire experince, this gap can immediately be plugged with magic or gods. :razz:

Albino ravens are apparently a thing. — Janus

Worth a mint too I imagine. I think I prefer albino blues guitarists.

If physicalism is bereft or trivially true, what account of the world do you give when talking to an average person with some philosophical interest?

I'm just giving a concrete example of Hemple's dilemma. But further, physicalism is itself not a physicalist doctrine, and hence denies itself. — Banno

I get the performative self-refutation part. What's the Hempel's dilemma aspect of the traffic light e.g.? I understand that all non-black things are non-ravens.

Personally, I prefer the idea of the Nietzsche's Last Man to that of the Übermensch. Comfort, routine and the mundane sound pretty good to me. Needless to say, the inherent complacency it might lead to might usher in our doom (climate change, Trump, etc) but there's no reason to assume that basic quality assurance couldn't be built into our mediocracy? :wink: