However, you seem to think that the clarification of the content of the contract will deprive the people of their due rights, which I cannot understand. — panwei

The only import from my comment, which I believe is associated with rules governing behavior, which is a problem that has persisted and will continue to persist until some new form of rule-following pattern in enforcing behavior could arise. Such a form of governance relies on the people to appreciate their own behavior, such as making money, which leads to self-reinforcement. The carrot has taken humanity a lot farther than the stick.

I also want to point out that content is very important, which as you may witness how important content in included in fine print to be avoided from being understood.

I also do not think standards are something that rules are deeply associated with, given that these are usually cultural values which are passed down from generation to generation. However, China has succeeded in their own cultural revolution, while American counter culturalists have defeated themselves by quite literally smoking the opiate.

There is a problem with this line of reasoning that already has transpired in the world. When laws and rules are in conflict with equality, then the disenfranchised will react. Overdetermination of rules and laws have been a source of disenfranchisement in the past, also, this is true of many countries.

Yes, I agree. But, one must will it into, well, happening.

Just a random picture of Platon:

Some relevant domain distinctions are Abstract vs Concrete & Relations vs Things & Ideal vs Real & Mental vs Material & Cultural vs Natural. The Forms, like Math, are logically true even though materially false. In their relevant cultural domain (psychology ; philosophy), Forms are useful tools for thinking, even though useless for manipulating matter, until trans-formed into a natural domain (physics ; science). — Gnomon

I believe that string theory is closest one can approach the Forms in terms of mathematics and physics as one would or could imagine. It's the only field in physics that is entirely dependent on mathematical relations.

I've returned to this thread after a pause in philosophizing, sorry.

Regarding treating the theory of forms as an attempt to comprehend itself as a form of reference, I would say this is a mistaken view for the following reason:

1. The Forms are a separate domain of discourse, which one is only able to grasp with understanding of mathematics. With regard to mathematics, the OP still is cogent. If one were to render the truths of mathematics in an informal language, then sure, it would be a pointless and futile way to say, "see this doesn't make sense", as the sense of the whole theory lies with apperception of the platonic forms in the domain of discourse of mathematics. The very notion of Truth, which the Forms are placed in is in the domain of discourse of mathematics, and probably nowhere else, (possibly in mathematical-physics perhaps).

SO, what are your thoughts about the ineffability of mathematics and the problematic translation of Truth rendered in mathematics, which is poorly understood as a language that can be seen in informal languages?

Desire is a projection of memory. — unenlightened

Is this a psychological fact? As I believe it cannot.

Well, the aim here is to have a rendering or model of language that aligns with truth of concepts and what I imagine "archetypes" in understanding concepts as truthful. This whole use as meaning from Wittgenstein's family resemblance and language games is kinda something I wanted to see disambiguated from a Tarskian view on semantics...

Um, I can almost understand this. Can you develop it more? — tim wood

Yes, well the rationale is that given that languages utilize extensively the use of concepts to talk about various issues, like space or time or physics, then I surmise that by appealing to T-schemas, that a user of language would be better able to understand concepts with regards to what can be rendered or said truthfully about a concept in a language (atomic sentences).

This time it may be Africa's chance for a pope...

Intense. Good thread opening post. :clap:

No. Those will be allowed in the shout box. — T Clark

Yes, this.

There go my pig videos.

:meh:

The very existence of this forum thread in a male dominated space of discourse is in itself proof of the intellectual awakening in this topic. — Christoffer

:halo:

The egalitarianism-oriented social cohesion of the tribal societies, this in regard to hunter-gatherer tribes of the past - just as much as it pertains to, and based on what we know of, the hunter-gatherer tribes of today. — javra

Yes, I agree that the social cohesion of tribes or hunter-gatherer societies of the past would have broken apart had men taken advantage of women in the past. However, I am not sure if this was commonplace. Obviously the ambiguity of this situation should not warrant doubt, yet, one does wonder. I would even hypothesize that the more evolved groups did better or assimilated other hunter-gatherer societies more successfully than the ones that were less evolved in terms of group behavior towards women.

I'd like to reiterate the stance taken in this thread, being that, if men to this day are still so predatory against women in terms of sexual assaults, rape, and molestation, then what were preventing these tendencies in the past (prehistoric times) if there were no police, law enforcement, or laws protecting their livelihoods?

That would only be the imaginary part?

I hope you can elucidate to us the true nature of statistics. Would it be possible to one day discover causation from correlation?

Just food for thought.

Thanks man. Really happy you held down the fort.

Awesome post friend. :up:

Yeah, but isn't Allah a name of God, also?

Either way, Hebrews never recognized Jesus as the king of Jews, and never would. For which he was crucified.

Jesus was not abandoned by God; but by YHWH. Get it right. YHWH abandoned Jesus.

Just setting the record straight.

I had a dream that you became mayor or governor of your city.

I'll probably join Bluesky, thanks...

Must the cogito rely upon a notion of the past and future in order for its doubt to make sense? — Moliere

No. It seems as though there is something more to it than the solipsism Descartes allowed in his analysis on the cogito. I think that one can allow skepticism about things like God's intention or even the Will itself.

If Dems were really out to win, then this guy Bernie Sanders would have beaten Trump twice.

Is that statement of belief a reaction to the sad state of American politics, in which top-down competitive Capitalism is winning the "game" against bottom-up Cooperative Socialism? — Gnomon

No, I think this is mistaken. I believe we are living in an age of syndicalism. You can see it with the banking sector, pharmaceutical industry, and insurance companies, alongside with their push for laws protecting their interests with special-interest groups and lobbying in congress. I actually believe this is a natural tendency of competitive markets being forced on oligopolistic rational actors. As rationality increases through iterated game-theoretic strategies, then a desire to dominate the market landscape forces companies to cooperate and form syndicalist tendencies.

Would you agree with this?

* The lynchpin of this is that a capitalist market can only maintain growth through competition. Yet, to increase profits instead of constant decreases in prices through competition, these rational actors form a desire to syndicalize their operations or even cooperate to form oligopolies, which then later could be seen as a syndicalist environment for such companies.

Before this thread closes, there really should be infractions enabled towards members for various offences.

If the Rules and Guidelines can be updated with 2 strike rule instead of 3, I think it would be worth it for members. If people scream for earning an infraction, then just refer them to the Policies/Rules and Guidelines of the forum...

I think the EU should focus on funding NATO or a EU-NATO alternative itself.

I have always been against the diversion of funds towards military expenditure; but, the EU simply needs its own defense force.

Most abstractly, based off of what is actually good. If you mean to ask what normative ethical theory I subscribe to, then it is a form of Virtue Ethics. — Bob Ross

Yes, I understand. I believe a normative theory has applications on the very governing of a nation. I think my point is that nationalism, and the currents of history seem to indicate that certain ideologies should be viewed in terms of their consequences that they may entail towards a nation. Regarding which, nationalism has been historically viewed as a source of ills towards any country aspiring towards a democratic state.

I submit to you, that you should accept a sense of nationalism in two respects. The first, in the sense that whatever nation you belong to you must have a vested interest in its flourishing and protection against other nations—or move to a different one (if you can). The second, in the sense that, if your country has substantially better politics than other ones, you should have a pride in it and want to expand its values to the more inferior ones (which leads to imperialism). — Bob Ross

I suppose this is the thesis of the OP. I have some questions about how nationalism is usually seen-as. One, would be the aspect of nationalism enabling negative consequences. I don't think this issue can be seen deontologically, with the baggage of human history in mind. The second question is whether if you don't accept the consequentialist assessment of the merits of nationalism, then on what merit do you asses its morality or goodness to a nation defined as nationalist?

Oh buddy, I hope women just help this one out, as you hope they do.

What about division by 0? This stuff got me so confused in calculus. Also, this 0.(9)=1 is also confusing because people don't view it as an ever expanding series, which is a contextual issue between a non-converging series as a limit (AS DEFINED by stating 0.(9)) and a converging series as a limit towards infinity. What matters in my opinion, is the law of identity in clarifying how these mental cramps arise.

Yes, well the very premise, which when I read about dialectics caused me to instantly want to read-about Hegel made me think about the issue of 'truth-formation' in terms of science.

My natural inference from discovering significant truth in Hegel was regarding the nature of causality. I posted hereabouts some thoughts about the nature of causality and its significance to the field of law, science, and philosophy. I am not that interested in the socio-economic aspect of Hegel. I view it as an appeal to civil democracy, where or which has been attempted in the US, (as usual), first in the 1950's.

Thanks for commenting. I am also interested in your take on the notion of conservativism, as seen in the US. I am quite tired of seeing US conservatives dominating headlines in terms of their proselytizing of being first to this or that in terms of economics. If you really think about it, once you divorce the notion of being more rational for believing in theories or doctrines, which naturally arise out of human rationality, then you kind-of deflate the whole hot air balloon.

Anyway, thanks and hoping for your response.

It's important to note that axiology is a branch of ethics regarding the degree of good or evil.

I felt compelled to scribble a little nonsense about fawns burning in the forest. It's an example of the Will to Nonsense. — BC

This is said in regards to "a blind aimless will", I assume?

Well, if Bambi is incapable of being self-aware, and we really go down this path of how humans are so much more self-aware, then isn't there at some point a need to invoke morality about how, if not nature itself, then human nature affects our self-awareness and deeds and acts we do?

You'd have to explain more for me to respond to what you are actually saying. — schopenhauer1

According to Arthur Schopenhauer, the concept of a creator, particularly a personal God, is essentially non-existent; he viewed the driving force behind the universe as a blind, aimless "Will" which does not correspond to any conscious or intentional creator, effectively negating the idea of a traditional God figure.

So, I believe that without a driving force guiding the universe apart from the Will, which determines how things happen, then my concern is over how to find happiness in a world where the Will is all encompassing. With regard to the totalizing nature of the Will, what are your thoughts about it?

But we need not take Will literally as a metaphysic for the metaphor to be true. — schopenhauer1

Yes, well this is where Schopenhauer left this aspect out of the discussion about the axiology of the World itself. I believe that this aspect left out of the discussion about the nature of the Will is important to have.

The World as Will can lead to absurdity. With so much to say one sometimes expresses life affirmations.

Yet, every act or deviation from the nature of the Will could be perceived as ignorance of a greater truth.

There's also the Will. I think that's a pregnant topic which I haven't seen you often talking about. I made a shot in the dark about how wild nature is and how we struggle with our own inner instinct.

There's also the poor fawn in the burning forest that experienced what some might call gratuitous harm.

But I'd like to take this down a path that I think there is a case that practical reasoning leads to various conclusions if one considers the fact of self-awareness. — schopenhauer1

Yes, well the trodden path is usually, according to Schopenhauer, that of the nature of desire and how it causes us harm.

Other paths include life affirmations and even the vanity of existence.