Where do forms come from if not perennial apriori ideas? — Nikolas

What do you mean by "come from"? Where does that idea come from?

The Forms (or Ideas) arise in the human being, and are described by the human being. It's like asking "where does language come from" or "where does abstraction come from"? Where do numbers and words "come from"? They arise in the human being, often called the "mind" or "reason," and there's little else to say about it. If you want to make up a story about their arising from some supernatural or mystical realm, or "nothingness," or anything else -- fine. But it's not interesting.

The discussion of forms requires deductive reason. It begins with the first manifestation by our source not limited by time and space into creation itself: ideas (something from nothing) sometimes called the body of God. — Nikolas

You're already way off track. Ideas aren't "something from nothing." This has to be clearly justified and explained. Ideas, or forms, are generalities/classes/prototypes. When discussing "tree" or "dog," the Form refers to the "what-ness" of that entity. What makes it a stick, a dog, a tree. These are the forms. What's the problem, exactly? What's your question? We classify and generalize and conceptualize things all the time.

The rest is just verbiage. Bring it back to earth, quote Plato himself, give examples, etc. Otherwise this isn't interesting.

In trying to understand Plato's forms, it is wise to consult what Plato said about them. Anything less is not a discussion about Plato's forms. — tim wood

Exactly.

mainly conservative media
— Xtrix

I disagree. It's lefty media who are outraged by him. See Cathy Newman. — counterpunch

This is predictable. Try to get beyond this thinking of "left" and "right." That's reducing things to the level of sports teams.

The right are programmed to be outraged by things like gender pronouns, unisex bathrooms, and whatever else is played up by their media. The same boring narratives: liberals are against free speech, especially in universities, political correctness is destroying the country, etc. That's just as much manufactured as the left. Jordan Peterson sees these manufactured controversies, and rather than analyzing them rationally, decides to exploit it to sell books and garner attention. Which clearly works, given that you and others are forcing it upon the rest of us, as if he's serious enough to be worthwhile. I'm not wasting another word on this man.

Peterson came to public attention because he refused to use politically correct gender pronouns; and I think that is key to understanding who he is, and why he's so popular. — counterpunch

Exactly. He's great at exploiting "outrage" manufactured by the media (mainly conservative media, in this case: Fox News, Breitbart, NY Post, talk radio, etc). Gives the right an "intellectual," like other talking-heads but with the distinction of being professorial, more nuanced (by his followers' standards), and with the extra credit of being from the very fields which those of a conservative political persuasion have come to largely dismiss or reject: academia and science (in this case, psychology).

Pretty easy to figure out, if one takes 30 seconds to step outside their media-created prejudices.

:rofl:

Or maybe you're just a right-wing nut job? Hmm...

Jordan Peterson is a pseudo-intellectual and a waste of time. Look no further than the fact that he sells millions of books and garners lots of attention. Basic charlatanism. Why people choose Peterson as "their guy" is beyond me, but to each his own.

This article sums it all up rather nicely: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

If you want to appear very profound and convince people to take you seriously, but have nothing of value to say, there is a tried and tested method. First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Make sure it actually does contain some insight, though it can be rather vague. Something like “if you’re too conciliatory, you will sometimes get taken advantage of” or “many moral values are similar across human societies.” Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly. Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work. Construct elaborate theories with many parts. Draw diagrams. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite. Then evangelize: speak as confidently as possible, as if you are sharing God’s own truth. Accept no criticisms: insist that any skeptic has either misinterpreted you or has actually already admitted that you are correct. Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible. Follow these steps, and your success will be assured. (It does help if you are male and Caucasian.) —

Or here:

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/a-messiah-cum-surrogate-dad-for-gormless-dimwits-on-jordan-b-petersons-12-rules-for-life/

A Messiah-cum-Surrogate-Dad for Gormless Dimwits: On Jordan B. Peterson’s “12 Rules for Life”

:yawn:

I wonder who this could be? Another person recently banned, no doubt. My advice: don’t bother engaging. Let them talk to themselves.

Let’s first define “thing”. To reformulate: why are there beings at so instead of nothing? Leibniz asked this question as well.

The best analysis I have found is Heidegger’s introduction to metaphysics.

“Whereon is every answer to the question of beings based? That is, wherein does the unconcealment of being originate?

To say it with an example: the Greek interpret being as “presence” of the present. “Presence” indicates time.”

It has nothing to do with Trump.

Health mandates are left to the states for a reason. — NOS4A2

Let me be as unambiguous as I can: I look at you with utter contempt. Your "opinions" are completely worthless. You made your choice a long time ago.

Thus, having you come out strongly against something furthers my confidence that it's the right move. For example, I was on the fence about a national mandate -- now I know it's the correct move. So thank you.

Terrible move. America’s downfall is occurring at a frightening pace. — NOS4A2

lol. What a shocker that the guy up Trump's ass would say this.

Not a bad start. Ezra Klein had a decent article today in the NY Times about the Democrats. If they want to win, they should enact legislation that effects peoples lives directly. Unlike the early days of the Obama administration, they should be much bolder. In order to do that, they'd have to destroy the filibuster -- and that probably won't happen, mainly because of Joe Manchin. So we'll have to see what they can do through reconciliation.

If they haven't learned anything, and lay down, then there's no chance for this country or for their chances in 2022.

If it was a choice there would be no punishment for refusing to do it. A better phrase might be “collective coercion”. — NOS4A2

Right out of Ayn Rand.

You wouldn’t have wealth we see in the US without a strong nanny state. So I agree— we should get rid of it. I don’t want my tax dollars going to massive corporate subsidies.

But “charity” is the real problem, of course. Forget the 700 billion a year on defense contracts— Those damn welfare queens are the true problem.

What a sick, perverted, warped worldview. Again I repeat: you can’t die off quickly enough.

It's preferable if you cite your source: https://philarchive.org/rec/SOFAPC

If you're not the author of this, that's plagiarism.

is contrary to the constitution
— NOS4A2

You just saying so does not make it so. — Tobias

Trump supporters live in Opposite Land. Shamelessly. So if Trump is impeached for violating the constitution, YOU’RE violating the constitution. If Trump says something racist, and you call him such, YOU’RE a racist. Etc. And of course “both sides” deserve equal consideration.

It’s as predictable as it is childish. Pure tribalism.

One of the House freshman (Green) has already drawn up impeachment papers for Biden. I suppose NOS and other deluded Trump cultists will say this is perfectly constitutional.

If we were to leave it up to them, nothing will happen until we’re all dead. No consequences for Trump, no action needed on climate change, no need for police reform, no such thing as racism, etc. All that’s relevant is giving away as much as possible to the plutocracy. Cut their taxes, get rid of any regulation, privatize everything — all while screaming about “small government.” Capitalistic nihilism at its finest.

Again I repeat: these people can’t die off quickly enough. I just hope they don’t bring the entire human species down with them, which is their goal.

It sets a dangerous precedent to impeach a politician—or anyone—for advocating the peaceful exercising of their constitutional rights. — NOS4A2

Yeah, definitely peaceful. Except for the sacking of the Capitol, which Trump incited.

Go gaslight somewhere else.

Defending Trump is now akin to defending OJ. His supporters are still looking for the “real inciters.”

Remember where all this started: demonstrably untrue claims about voter fraud and a stolen election. That rhetoric alone should be impeachable.

How long before all these “soulful” corporations reneg on their pledge not to fund republican election objectors?

:lol:

All of this might make some foreigner drool with glee — NOS4A2

You mean seeing a bunch of Trump supporters, incited by Trump, sacking the Capitol building? Or watching degenerates like you equivocate about it?

I agree.

No one is saying that Congress cannot impeach someone for whatever they like. — NOS4A2

Yes. Like incitement, which is what Trump did -- in reality. Of which we know you're allergic.

Jesus, the guy really is an idiot. — Kenosha Kid

Yes. Put NOS in post-war Germany and he would have been equivocating about Hitler for years. Must be like playing whack-a-mole for bad apologetics.

But of course it's YOU who are the brainwashed one. :lol:

And there are still con artists who deny there is a leftist hegemony of the media. — Rafaella Leon

There is no left hegemony. Conservative media dominates talk radio, cable news, has the most read newspaper in the country, etc. Hollywood is no doubt liberal.

Stop whining and grow up.

The open persecution that big media and internet companies move towards Christian and conservative publications is the integral and definitive proof — Rafaella Leon

:yawn:

And it’s the liberals who are supposed to be snowflakes.

Take your pontification and sell it to people who care.

Extra points for writing “verisimilitude” several times. You sound wicked smart.

Let me explain how time works. That ^ was issued today. The riot happened last week. — Kenosha Kid

How silly, appealing to reason, logic, general rationality, etc. The "debate" with NOS or anyone else still supporting Trump is already over. It ended years ago. There are no principles or consistency in anything -- just pure tribalistic thinking.

A little thought experiment makes it clear: just imagine if Obama (who I'm no fan of) held a rally saying the exact same things and the capital was overrun with his supporters. Would these people be equivocating, so eager to qualify every fact/statement they could? Would they suddenly take an interest in nuance?

Please. I heard more outrage when he asked for dijon mustard. It's a futile enterprise.

Still, your replies are funny.

s Trump evil? Yes.

Does that automatically mean he's stupid? No. — Hippyhead

He’s not stupid. In fact, he’s got very strong con-man instincts, since that’s been his entire life. He’s managed limited success in business because of his created persona and brand creation, thanks largely to manipulating the media.

He brought that to politics, and it proved a good match. Name recognition was important, as was general anger with DC. Add social media to the mix, and it’s little surprise he’s taken over the party.

Yea, ok, I can hear that. Cowardly does seem accurate. So is there any point to another impeachment then in your opinion? — Hippyhead

Yeah, just in terms of precedent. It puts the Republicans in a position to have to vote against it, which is good, while keeping Trump's ability to run again in tact when it fails, which is (I would argue) ALSO good for this country. Why? Because if he runs again, it'll further divide the Republican party during the primaries, and after four years and the memory of this event, he'll likely lose -- assuming the Democrats don't completely blow it these next few years. But as soon as I wrote that last part, I'm beginning to think he may have a shot after all.

I guess I'm just getting old my friend. The torrential bullshit storm has worn me out. — Hippyhead

I can see that -- and that's a shame, I think. But you're in big company, and that's exactly the problem. And you're well above average in your activism -- most are too busy keeping food on the table to have any time, and others are either too distracted, too apathetic, or completely disenfranchised to do anything.

These stories you tell are pretty defeatist, though, don't you think? It's very selective, skewed towards negative experiences. The very fact that you got a meeting on national television is an enormous success, for example -- yet you focus on a dickhead sheriff's poor reaction to you? I do sympathize, because those things really do suck and obviously can be demoralizing, but I don't see the alternative. By quitting, or laying down, you're essentially helping the opposite forces along.

This thread is a good example, yes. OK, so people aren't focused enough on nuclear weapons. Then it's your job to educate them. Who says you can't?

But they don't have to show up. The Republican senators could liberate themselves from Trump just by not showing up to vote. Seventeen senators not showing up would get the job done, right? — Hippyhead

No, because that leaves 83 total. Two-thirds of 83 would be 55, so you'd still need a good deal (5, if done after Democrats take over), even in that very unlikely scenario where that many don't show up. I'm not quite seeing 5 yet, although it's close. But again, this is a pipe dream. It's not going to happen. They're still terrified of his base.

Too bad it's not a secret ballot. Then I have no doubt they'd have the votes -- most Republicans can't stand him. They're just too cowardly to say it publicly.

If they convict him in the senate, he's barred from holding public office again.
— Xtrix

Are you sure that's all that's required? I'm hearing jabber about there needing to be another vote specifically about banning him from running. — Hippyhead

I'm pretty certain, yes.

I'm hearing that what's needed is two thirds of the Senators who show up to vote. If that's true, that's a very different situation, yes? — Hippyhead

Different but not huge. When there are important votes, almost every senator shows up. If you need 17 or so Republicans, even a few people quarantining or sick won't get you there.

I too share the interest in nuclear weapons and, you're right, it's taken a back seat to climate change and other issues (social justice, etc). But taking a step back, it seems as if you took a real shot at it and were met with multiple dead-ends. That's discouraging, no doubt, but the solution isn't to lay down. It's to find other avenues. Just from what you've posted, I think one area has been too much reliance on the Internet. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what I gather.

Incidentally, I've done the same myself -- joined a new group last summer, had 170 members within a week (more than I expected), but then quickly turned into exactly nothing, eventuallbeing reduced to just one person occasionally sharing various articles. I had encouraged them to do Zoom meetings or meet in person if possible, because that is FAR more meaningful and more "real" than communicating from behind a screen and, when posting, to write THEIR thoughts, not simply sharing links to articles, memes, or quotations, as people tend to ignore those because they're everywhere. This advice was not heeded, and the group is now a ghost town. Totally pointless. I myself am complicit in it, as I could have pushed harder for these things myself, even if not an administrator.

But we can't let results like this discourage us. I have no doubt that things can be done -- that people can organize, even in small groups, to get things done. So instead I've turned my attention to forming a union at my workplace. I do this by talking to my coworkers and per diem staff individually. It's a slow process, and not guaranteed to work. But that doesn't bother me. If I fail, I'm sure I'll learn something important from it.

Long story short, I'd encourage you to keep trying or move to something where you can possibly get more traction. The climate change movement is an important one. I think nuclear weapons are equally as important, as it's an existential threat, but it's simply not getting the attention it deserves right now, so that's a bit of bad luck for you if that's what you happen to settle upon. But there are endless possibilities for activism. Perhaps even looking to more local problems.

“We need to help induce national calm NOW,” Cumulus’s executive vice president of content Brian Philips wrote in the memo. The company “will not tolerate any suggestion that the election has not ended. The election has been resolved and there are no alternate acceptable ‘paths.’”

Philips added, “If you transgress this policy, you can expect to separate from the company immediately.” —

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/talk-radio-owner-threatens-to-fire-hosts-who-dispute-election-results/

Interesting. Mark Levin, Dan Bongino, and Ben Shapiro all employees. It's about time talk radio joins the fray.

I may have missed this. What exactly would have to happen for Trump to be legally barred from running again? I'm getting the impression from NPR coverage that no one really knows for sure. Is that right, or am I missing pieces of the puzzle? — Hippyhead

If they convict him in the senate, he's barred from holding public office again. But that's unlikely to happen, given that 67 senators are needed to do so.

Agreed. And if I could add, not just educate them, but be educated by them where possible. That's surely implied in the concept of not holding them in contempt. — Hippyhead

Yes, but worth pointing out more explicitly. Appreciated.

Dominion software got them to make a complete retraction. — Hanover

After being threatened with a billion dollar lawsuit. I hope that sends a message, and I hope they go for the jugular.

My attitude arises out of about a billion hours spent in the north Florida woods, which I have discovered to be more interesting than human beings, on average, generally speaking. — Hippyhead

Having grown up spending a lot of time in the woods, I often prefer it over the social world as well. But if ever there were a time where we need all rational hands on deck, it's right now. So what I had said was more a personal goal: be more social, be more active, try to organize, try to bring people in, unionize, etc. But I encourage others who have similar temperaments to do the same, given the unprecedented circumstances. Every little bit helps.

https://twitter.com/carlquintanilla/status/1348599278877470721

Interesting. Cumulus Media now giving a few hosts an ultimatum.

But honest to God, true story, there is a retarded squirrel living in cage at the top of the stairs here who is far more interesting, to me, than most human beings. — Hippyhead

This is not meant to be insulting, because I've felt (and continue to feel) this way as well, but I think it's worth attempting to grow out of this kind of view. I think this attitude is a remnant of adolescent contempt. I have to fight the feeling often enough to realize it's far easier said than done -- although also quite appropriate at times -- but I think it's a worthwhile undertaking, especially in the current circumstances. There should be no quarter given to those participating in, supporting, condoning, or cryptically justifying what took place Wednesday -- and to those who are begging for a fight or a civil war should not be run away from. But we're still stuck with 75 million + people who, for whatever reason, took the time to vote for Donald Trump, and not all of them are unreachable. I don't see a way out of this other than making attempts to educate them, and that can't be done if we hold them in contempt.

I know your point was about social media, by the way, so I digress.

That's interesting. I suspect you're right. I've been on Facebook since near the beginning, when you needed a college email to get on. I've deleted several times since then, and didn't miss it much at all. But that was years ago.

I agree that keeping in contact with people is still very much a useful thing. Now I simply prefer to use their Messenger application. The rest ("news" feed mainly, and the advertisements they bring, plus groups -- most of which are toxic) has become quite useless. I suggest this as a compromise to you if you're regretting not using it. It's basically text or, if people remember back, AIM (AOL Instant Messenger).

I'm sure the lists are incomplete. :D When serial liars become the go-to authority for a lot of people with zeal and guns, then it could well make sense for privately owned platforms to kick them off. — jorndoe

Well said. This appears exactly right. And I hold no illusions about the benevolence of social media platforms.

The right is arguing that because they’re monopolies, there’s a different set of rules. They cite Iran and Syria leaders being allowed to say things freely, and a few posts about burning down a cop’s house that were supposedly left up— not sure if it was BLM or not. That’s the line they’re taking on Fox News, anyway.

Don’t get the joke. Shocker.

Congratulations, Brett. You’ve once again proven too boring to even have a petty argument with. :yawn: