@Baden

Just for you...


What do you think?

Call him a genius or call him Satan, but either way, you'll be calling him Mr. President come November. — Hanover

Man, haven't we come a far far far way from what got Nixon and Clinton ousted from the presidency.

Yeah, and people would even call this a "good thing."

There's no such thing as bad publicity. — Hanover

This only reflects your lack on conscience on such matters. If those bible thumpers aren't persuaded by his playboyism, then what does that mean about what they think he is?

These is for some an admiration, but I don't think that he has generally regarded as a philosopher. — Fooloso4

Yes, Thrasymachus was a sophist; but, a very astute one in what he regarded justice to be. It seems to me that Thrasymachus, with respect to what history can tell us, isn't entirely 'wrong.'

His philosophy of might making right has been witnessed-many times over-by what history can tell us.

Are you asking if that is what Plato said, what his view on it was. Or if what Plato said is true in reality, in how things play out? — ChatteringMonkey

Well, I was only asking about your opinion about whether you think Plato was not accounting for the needs of the individual in Plato's Republic.

Thrasymachus or any realist would say that Plato is essentially doing the same thing, i.e. vying for (political) power with his philosphy, he just isn't as aware of it as they are. — ChatteringMonkey

Plato leaves little room for individualism, as this aspect of behavior is determined by the classes governing Plato's Republic. Do you think this is true?

All things considered, I view Thrasymachus' sentiments as a negative. Mostly due to the fact that I don't support his insistence on challenging the powers, pace, Strauss' noble lies.

Thrasymachus realism — ChatteringMonkey

Interesting way to put it. Plato really couldn't fit into his picture Thrasymachus' portrayed psychopathy or sociopathy that pervades humanity instead of being guided by man's intelligence (nous) and strivings for eudaimonia.

That's not the point I am attempting to make. Let me clarify, with the sentiments of Thrasymachus, all the way back to Ancient Greece, which Socrates could not handle and Plato had no answer, then we are still witnessing his thoughts played out in the chain of history. People say we might find salvation in technology; but, just take a look at what the atomic bomb did to end the axis of evil, and even then it was utilized as a demonstration of strength or power against a foe that was on the verge of defeat.

So, I believe that throughout history people have every right to be paranoid or skeptical.

I trust that the bus will tae me home in good order, and at the time on the timetable or thereabouts. — unenlightened

Yes, well certain ideologies of the past have been promising absolute trust in the government by ensuring that the trains run on time. After such bad experiences, (not to be taken in a vacuum), such as Mussolini or Nazi Germany, how can one not be wary of what other people have to say.

One does not notice all the everyday interactions that one relies on to live, but notices the exceptions which are the scammers and cheats. Call them out, call them out, but don't lose your trust in humanity. — unenlightened

Yes well, not so long ago we witnessed such a failure of trust, that only such experiences could make one skeptical if not paranoid, no?

hardening of ideology — Shawn

Yeah, it exists in case someone is wondering. A good pointer to see what the shenanigans are about see; https://www.csis.org/analysis/ideological-security-national-security

Bona fide is the sine qua non of communication. — unenlightened

If what you're saying is really true, then why aren't more people talking about this? On my own terms, I'll just point out the polarization the world is currently experiencing and with that the hardening of ideology, what should one do about this lack of congeniality in the main stream media?

Just pointing this out; but, are you aware that the legal system will enforce the current presidential run in the US depending on what some random judge says about Trump the playboy? In 2014, when Hillary Clinton was running, she got snubbed the presidency by a mistake by Comey from the FBI a week before the election.

This is necessarily the case as the lie is necessarily parasitic on truthful communication. At the point where one cannot ever trust the response, one stops asking even such paranoid [sic] questions... — unenlightened

Well there is a saying that only the paranoid survive, which I see fully fleshed out about how we arrive at our decisions based on the current information we have. But, if you have to psychologize this response about my attitude towards communication, then I believe that by being paranoid we can, one can say, appreciate the truth and especially with it honesty and credibility, which good faith relies on.

we are, in the west at least, a super litigious society. It is difficult to be convinced in bona fides as a mechanism of trust. — ENOAH

I believe you are right about this, but, can you clarify the litigiousness of which societies?

Rather than risk life and limb, or face some course of violent retaliation, people could often rely on the good faith of their neighbors to get along. — NOS4A2

Or the law?

But Good Faith nowadays proves to be more difficult than knavery. I don't have any developed theory, but I would propose that the reason for this is an increase in the domain of law, it's scope as a pseudo morality, and the thousand-and-one ways with which it allows an authority to intervene our interactions. — NOS4A2

Well if its the law that gets into the way of good moral conduct, then at least it prevents as its primary goal, the reduction of corruption. I think that having the law prevent dictatorships or autocracies from forming is a good thing. Take for example with what happened fairly recently in Poland with the Law and Justice party, perverting the law towards their own favor, and the Civic Coalition resuming power after a long eight years of some nepotism. I believe Viktor Orban is next, in Hungary.

In short, we aren't free enough for Good Faith. — NOS4A2

It's not freedom. Rather apathy and the exploitation of the law itself.

You have surely noticed how people are kind and polite when they need something from you, but very quickly change their attitude once you provide them with help. — SpaceDweller

Interesting observation, please go on... Again, the Romans had something called quid pro quo, which was a virtuous desire based on good faith.

Nowadays people do a tit for tat and call it a day once the transaction is over. Too cold and remorseless.

Well, they constitute quite a bit of society and human interactions and always have, before and after the time of the Roman Republic. — Ciceronianus

In my humble opinion it actually began formally with the Roman Republic with their laws establishing every new dominion of Rome as an ally in terms of laws bestowed upon them upon or becoming a dominion of Rome. The Romans knew what they were doing, as does Biden, who seems to be very much some kind of former member of The Club of Rome. :chin:

So yeah, there is no bona fide either or anything similar like Winner school, human society is becoming very cold and rude centered around money. — SpaceDweller

Yet to make money, there's a lot of shoulders to rub and smooth talking to do. Again, it seems like when you land in a highly competitive environment with lax rules, you tend to find a lot of hustling going on.

Haven't done that for a long time. Had one positive and one really shitty experience in IT contract work. In the latter, a corporation - don't know what size - was ripping off a municipal government, but we got out unscathed. IBM Canada was mostly okay, faith-wise, if not in executive decisions; a couple of other US subsidiaries were more or less inefficient and top-heavy. We always got paid, but were not always happy. — Vera Mont

Yes, it seems that there may be differing types of corporate cultures out there. I wouldn't know how to comment on companies like Google and Apple which take ethics very seriously. Then again, I can only speak from experience and one of the most common saying that I hear US workers say is, "Fake it until you make it." Which leads me to believe that it doesn't always work out due to your circumstances or environment.

Again, it seems like America is the way it is because of competitiveness and with that its most cherished activity being capitalism. Would you agree with my assumptions here?

In a competitive environment, then I suppose there's less gentlemanly behavior.

Maybe if your looking for good faith, it's over at the United Kingdom, no?

But, what about working for a corporation in the US. There doesn't seem to be much bona fide going on there or maybe I'm wrong about this?

Of course. They take place in every supermarket, at every pedestrian crossing, in every bank, school, hospital and home every hour of the day. Were it not so, society would unravel and cease to function. — Vera Mont

Yet, what about all this "hustle culture" stuff going on? I intended for this to be an individual post; but, sure I'm interested in your take...

What I also suspect, however, is that we have become addicted to catastrophe and stories of doom and zombie apocalypse and many believe that the state of humanity is rotten to the core and that meaning has been lost and the end is nigh. — Tom Storm

I take that as a quip at the US. Having said that, I think you are right that some Americans are more fearful and paranoid than other nations. Yeah, just another stereotype; but, it rings true to me.

What do you think?

By the way, I think that if what you're alluding to @Tom Storm, about these sociopaths, and especially psychopaths, then they have some kind of hyper-sublimating tendencies. Many of them turn out to be fantastic CEO's and executives.

How does the sublimation frame help you make sense of people? — Tom Storm

It doesn't in most cases; but, if one were to conjecture, then maybe it is true for the highly stratified individuals in society, especially philosophers, like Marx or Nietzsche's overman. But, I don't have enough information to extrapolate on this line of reasoning, and there are examples of philosophers that floundered when confronted with stuff like philosophical pessimism. Don't want to cherry pick examples here or there.

How do you think it works in Musk’s case? — Tom Storm

Musk seems to be unique in that he overtly states what troubles him in many of his interviews and decides to quickly act on those disliking's in providing solutions to avoid or adapt in a better manner towards, what he calls, "existential threats."

Are you saying that someone who is hyperactive and successful (and probably lucky) has harnessed their anxiety and channeled (sublimated) this into useful enterprises? — Tom Storm

I'm not sure. Again, just psychologizing here and there, I can say that he disclosed on a SNL episode that he suffers from Asperger's, and from what I can gather, might also have ADHD. It would be hard to say whether he is lucky, as he seems to be one of those self-made men in the American folklore.

I think there are various spins to sublimation - depending upon the era of the psychologist. Isn't the idea that it's a defence mechanism involving socially unacceptable impulses or behaviors which are transformed (sublimated) into socially acceptable actions or behaviors? — Tom Storm

Yeah, that's the classic Freudian take on it. But, I see it more as a adaptive defense mechanism, where a person internalizes some disliking about what is going on around them and decides to alter or change the way things are happening or in other words turn a maladaptive behavior into adaptive behavior. I think this is more in line with Maslow rather than Freud or Jung.

The example often used is that of a sociopath who becomes a surgeon - channelling their antisocial urges (cutting people up) and taking risks with life without emotion. — Tom Storm

Not sure if that pertains to sociopaths only, methinks.

Also, if you pay attention to what he says on YouTube, with Joe Rogan, and others, there seems to be something about what he's doing that tyrannizes over other people (allegedly) and especially himself, with his 60 hours work per week on average. I recommend watching some of his interviews to see what I mean by this.

How well do you know Musk in order to arrive at this? — Tom Storm

Well, again, I'm just an armchair psychologist, psychologizing his existential desire to move the world towards electric vehicles, then build tunnels to alleviate congestion on the streets, then build rockets to get to Mars so that we're a multiplanetary species, then develop Artificial Intelligence to direct cars on the road safer or as safely as possible, then buy Twitter, now known as X so he can talk with people around the world about his ambitions without much hesitation and gather interest...

So, yeah, if you get my drift, the guy might have a lot of pent up anxiety, or just desire for lack of a better word. Oh yeah, and some brain device that can make paraplegics and the disabled, not so paraplegic or disabled anymore.

Just my two cents. :chin:

Just as an interesting read:
https://nextpix.medium.com/beyond-sublimation-233388f9407e

It's really turtles all the way down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Is making a point, a desire to feel smart or important?

Just psychologizing here.

Yeah, I don't think I'm making much sense. So, I'm dropping this thread. Sorry for wasting your time, et al.

In the OP, I already stated what needed to be said about my abilities in the domain of logic. Seemingly you missed that part as you keep on demanding some kind of formalism from me, which unfortunately I can't provide. I clarified later that I had only one interest in Gödel numbering, mainly in utilizing the same logic found in linear algebra, specifically operators with matrices. My assumption being that by doing so, you could concise the amount of information required for the readout of the logic needed to ensure the lowest amount of information needed through the logical operators in matrixes for decoding RGB encoding on the matrix logical operator.

If there's nothing fruitful to do with such logic, then sorry for wasting your time.

Start with "Godel numbering in terms of an isomorphism". — TonesInDeepFreeze

Sure, I can try. Given three terms, R, G, B denoting "red, green, blue." I want to create an isomorphism in the domain of linear algebra with those terms, and by doing so, doing the things only linear algebra allows with those terms... Before I go any further, is what I'm saying possible?

Also, given some deliberation, in response to what TonesInDeepFreeze said, I'm not entirely sure if what I am attempting on doing (creating an isomorphism between three terms (R,G,B) in a Gödel numbering schematic to linear algebra is possible). By doing so, I would hope to reduce the amount of information by the logical operators utilized in linear algebra to encode the information required to display color on a screen, as a trivial example.

Hey, thanks for responding to my post.

What I had in mind in Gödel numbering, was whether by doing so in terms of a isomorphism, such as linear algebra, whether the Kolmogorov complexity would possibly be lower.

I wanted to give a simple example with the color encoding mechanism behind RGB (red, green, blue) on monitor screens or TV screens. The only problem with this example is that I don't know whether Kolmogorov complexity was established in how RGB is usually encoded, so there might be no point to doing whatever I'm saying to begin with.

Anyway, the hypothesis was that by Gödel numbering each term (RGB) in linear algebra, then the very richness of matrix operators and other logical operators, could contribute to a more "concise" format to encode the complexity of different color schemes from RGB, onto a monitor or TV set.

Anyway, thanks for posting, and I don't have much more to say.

My previous comment doesn't detract from the obscurity of Wittgenstein's writing style; but, only means that he wasn't a philosopher; but, rather a logician doing philosophy.

It's important to point out that Wittgenstein considered himself chiefly as a logician. If his arguments aren't deep and insightful about the nature of philosophy, and people quibble about what he meant all the time, then maybe it is all about misunderstanding something about him, which I doubt is true.

It simply took that long to discover what he meant.

Yes; but, people have psychologies.

Just the tendency of some people (even biographers) to think they can explain a thinker's work based on their imagining of a writer's psychological state. Conjecture. Or even the claim that they know what a writer intended meaning based on the writer's (putative) psychological state. Whatever that means. — Tom Storm

But, philosophy isn't mathematics, in that it isn't self-evident. How do you counter that?

I think it depends on their philosophy. — Leontiskos

Can you specify what you mean by "their philosophy?"

Is this a reference to their narrative or system of thought or something else?