I think Trump, and his movement is fast becoming one of the most destructive and corrosive forces against the image of 'all things American,' on the global stage and the longer the circus is allowed to continue, — universeness

I think you're right, and I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. As I kvetched earlier, the world's obsession with the US could use some whittling down, for your sake and ours.

Any chance this Jan 6 trial is over before the next election? I assume trump has the resources to delay it for an unreasonable amount of time. — flannel jesus

I don't think he will be able to delay the trial till after the election. He tried that in the documents case and it didn't work. On the other hand, if he is convicted, there will certainly be appeals that will go on for years. So, not matter what, I doubt he will be in jail on November 5, 2024.

There's something in a foreign country, right next door, that we can obsess about — BC

Yes, I share your concern.

I could talk in vagaries about honor and "fellow-feeling" — ToothyMaw

I don't see how honor or fellow-feeling are any more vague than judgments of utility and consequences. Those two supposedly more rational criteria are also based on human value rather than any objective basis.

"I" is the subject of the sentence, "wish" is the verb. The dependent clause "you fucking foreigners would leave the US politics to we Americans" is the object of the verb "wish". "Americans" is an object of a preposition, but so is the pronoun you used with "Americans". The pronouns "we" or "us" emphasizes that the speaker is part of the collective noun "Americans" and not a third party, — BC

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say whatever kind of crazy-ass thing you want.

That's King Flutternutter to you. — frank

Thank you for the clarification.

someone would demand people not discuss US politics — Benkei

If you'll check my post, you'll see I didn't demand anything. And I have no issue with non-Americans taking an interest in our politics. It's the obsession that is so unbecoming.

I wish you Americans would stop making unreasonable demands of the rest of the world and then act surprised we take issue — Benkei

I have no problem with non-Americans finding fault with American policies and international actions, but it makes you look like a bunch of chooches when you obsess about the intricacies of our internal politics. 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?

Actually... I've been to Europe twice, and both times the Netherlands were my favorite place. I think that's at least partly because I'm an engineer and it's a country of engineers.

I learned a new lesson on English grammar this morning, — javi2541997

Note my correction of @BC.

why can't the pronoun 'we' be the object of a preposition? — Changeling

You use subjective pronouns, e.g. "we", as the subject of a verb. You use objective pronouns, e.g. "us," as the object of a verb or in a prepositional phrase. As I noted, "we" in my usage is not the object of the preposition. I looked on the web and got different answers, but I think I remember Stephen Pinker saying that either word would be appropriate in this particular usage.

I have two American grand-children. And I do have expectations that America is better than what Trump wanted to make it. — Quixodian

And I have three Scottish nieces. I'm interested in politics in the UK and I pay attention a bit, but it's not an obsession. You guys seem to care more about US politics than I do, and I'm actually responsible for it.

Anyway, I don't expect you guys to change. I was just venting and rabble-rousing. You and your cohort being the rabble I was trying to rouse.

Nattering nabob of nitpicking grammarians here — BC

I asked myself that question while I was writing the post. I think you're wrong. "We" is not the object of the prepositions, "Americans" is.

Don't be so selfish Clarky. Learn to share. — Changeling

It just seems to me feriners could find something closer to home to be obsessed with, like the endangered Tasmanian devil or the price of bilibongs.

I advocate a form of eclecticism — Dermot Griffin

I advocate for using what works. That keeps things open for taking what I find useful from all sorts of sources. Almost all of my philosophy background is from personal reading. When you get to bottom, I'm with Emerson:

To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men—that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost—and our first thought is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment. Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men, but what they thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. — Emerson - Self Reliance

I was referring to spiritual practice. Are you saying this is the same as 'intellectual self awareness'? — Tom Storm

For me, spirituality means self-awareness - emotional, intellectual, physical, perceptual, social. Spiritual practice is an activity that makes me more self-aware.

No I meant I don’t know what it means. Your definition doesn’t resonate with me so much. — Tom Storm

Philosophy helps me recognize how my mind works. How I know what I know. Why I believe what I believe. Why I care about what I care about. Why I'm interested in what I'm interested in. And on a good day, why I do the things I do or don't do the things I don't do. I call that intellectual self-awareness.

If I were to believe you and T Clark, everyone is just directionless hippies and/or irresponsible pleasure-seekers with absolutely no designs on being ethical in any substantial way. — ToothyMaw

It's important to me that I treat people honorably. Sometimes I don't live up to that aspiration. The source of that isn't some formal, codified, "rational" ethical code, it's empathy and fellow-feeling. How does that make me directionless or irresponsible?

I wish you fucking foreigners would leave the US politics to we Americans. The argument that what happens here effects the whole world and that justifies your interest is baloney. What happens in Russia and China is just as important but you guys don't spend nearly as much time on that.

It's kind of pathetic. You hate us but you can't shake your obsession. Let's drop the big one now. We'll save Australia - wouldn't want to hurt no kangaroos.

Humans are such emotional creatures, so attached to our own experiences and projecting these upon others that I also wonder how it is we can also collaborate so well and care for each other. — Tom Storm

You call it projection, I call it empathy. I think it's the source of our ability to care for each other.

I've come to realize is right there in what I feel and see around me — Janus

I think that is the source of the transcendental realm. It's why so much of my philosophy is based on introspection, for which I have been criticized.

letting you know that whatever your presuppositions — Tom Storm

I agree. For me, that recognition is a function of my intellectual self-awareness.

I don't know what spiritual practice is — Tom Storm

I gave my definition - activities that promote self-awareness.

people are inclined to act according to supposedly rational rules and laws? — ToothyMaw

I don't think that is true at all, and it's especially not true in matters of morals. The essence of morality is human values, not truths.

Since you said you agree that the world is mind-dependent, what do you think that entails or implies? — Bob Ross

I think it's a metaphysical statement - a way of thinking about things or a point of view - not a fact. I like the way @Janus said it in a different discussion - It's a catalyst for new ideas and feelings. In a sense I think it's a meta-metaphysical statement. It demonstrates that our fundamental understanding of reality is human, I guess you would say subjective. That tells us not to be too arrogant about how universal our beliefs are.

Yes, all I meant by "inspiring" was something like "being a catalyst for new ideas and feelings — Janus

Yes - I think that's a good way of saying it.

You are talking about the simplistic definition of racism, as interpersonal prejudice. — Judaka

To me, the essence of racism is personal. I imagine what it would be like to go out every day being bombarded by the dislike, suspicion, and contempt of people I meet and knowing it would be the same tomorrow and the day after. I don't know if I would survive that.

As for the political and economic aspects of racism, I've come to believe that @BC is right - that's primarily an issue of class. Please correct me if I misstated your position, BC.

Do you think that the entire world is mind-dependent, or just certain of its features? — charles ferraro

I like @Tom Storm's answer.

I would like to share my formulation of an argument for the world being mind-dependent and qualitative; and see everyone's thoughts thereof. — Bob Ross

I don't disagree with the result of your arguments - the world is mind-dependent. I'm not so sure of some of the arguments themselves. That being said, what would a mind-independent world be? Is that just objective reality? Is it what was there before there were minds? Did nothing exist before there were minds? I don't think that is a ridiculous idea to propose.

He argues that philosophy is to be a practical exercise, a spiritual exercise. He writes in Philosophy as a Way of Life "Ancient philosophy proposed to mankind an art of living. By contrast, modern philosophy appears above all as the construction of a technical jargon reserved for specialists." — Dermot Griffin

In line with that argument - My (personal) answer to the question of what philosophies purpose - Philosophy is an exercise for learning to be aware of how my mind works. It's about self-awareness. For me, that's the definition of a spiritual practice.

I disagree that "anything experienced has already been conceptualized" is necessarily true.
— T Clark

Absolutely. That proposition is merely a theoretical tenet, hence shouldn’t be considered as necessarily true. It is still worthy of being considered nonetheless logically consistent and sufficiently explanatory. — Mww

Are they actual independent existents, or can the fact that we all see the same things be explained by our minds being connected with one another in some way we cannot be conscious of, or with some universal mind that "thinks" the objects we encounter every day? Or is there some other explanation we cannot even (at present or ever?) imagine? — Janus

I think the answer is simpler. We all have human minds with similar capacities. Those minds are stuffed full of knowledge about the world and how it works, much of which is taught to us by other people. That's how our minds are connected with each other.

Not your fault. — BC

You are forgiven.

Do you mean it is "useful" in the sense of being inspiring? — Janus

I'm thinking more about my response. I didn't really answer your question. I didn't like your use of "inspiring" but as I think more I think there is truth in it, although I'm not sure "inspiring" is the right word. I think materialism greases the skids for scientific thinking. It makes it easier to think about scientific questions, at least as those questions are generally formulated in today's science.

What we have here is a failure to communicate, or worse, a failure to think clearly. — BC

My position is simple and I think I've explained it clearly. Saying I have failed to think clearly is hard to respond to unless you provide justification for the claim. In the absence of that justification, I'll just say nunh unh.

explaining the problem in this most basic, inaccurate way, as a massive generalisation, that's pointless. — Judaka

I think the idea of racism leads to an inaccurate understanding of racial relationships in society. I that that view is also an over-generalization and is misleading.

Clark's outlining doesn't make any sense, and I don't think I can be bothered to have a serious debate on it. — Judaka

Perhaps it would be best if I don't respond to your posts in the future.

But is it possible to say anything intelligible about that experience? — Janus

Sure, but what gets said then is conceptualized. For me, that's the essence of the unspeakable - whatever it is, when you speak about it it becomes something different. It's important to recognize that, although I can process, conceptualize what I've experienced, it is not necessary that I do so.

I can get what you are saying, but I don't doubt that an idealist can do science just as well as a materialist, or that a materialist can do mathematics as effectively as an idealist. — Janus

I don't disagree, but I do think a materialist approach leads more naturally to a scientific understanding. It's also important to recognize that you can use more than one approach depending on the specific subject. You can see things materialistically when you're doing science and idealistically when you're doing math. We are not tied to a single metaphysical foundation.

So, do you think abstract reasoning is possible without language? — Janus

They seem very much of a piece don't they? That the evolution of language and reason would go hand in hand, would it not? That would not be a controversial claim would it? — Quixodian

I do think that language is necessary for abstract reasoning.

I think this aspect of Kant's philosophy - his treatment of the noumenal - is a deficiency. I'm still working out why, but the outlines are becoming clearer. — Quixodian

I think any philosophy that doesn't address the unspeakable, unknowable foundation of reality is missing something. I like the way Kant has formulated it, made it such as prominent part of his philosophy, but there parts of his take I don't agree with or don't understand enough to disagree with.

Kant named the noumena such because all we can do is think about it. It is never in our direct experience. — Gregory

Kant can be a wordy, inconsistent, confusing philosopher. The same is true of Lao Tzu. They both use the same words to mean different things at different times to suit their purposes. I don't know Kant well enough to know whether he and I mean the same thing when we talk about "experience." I'm not even sure Lao Tzu and other Taoist philosophers would agree with me.

Do you mean it is "useful" in the sense of being inspiring? — Janus

Example - I think a materialist approach to reality is useful for doing science. Conceptually breaking the world down into pieces - analysis - allows us to grasp the pieces and manipulate them for our purposes. That doesn't mean materialism is true.

Another - An idealist approach is useful when doing mathematics. Seeing mathematical entities as real allows us to work with them without contradiction. I've read that mathematicians tend to be idealists. Again, that doesn't mean idealism is true.

I’m no Taoist, that's for sure, but in western philosophy generally and Enlightenment German idealism in particular, anything experienced has already been conceptualized, and therefore can be spoken about. — Mww

I disagree that "anything experienced has already been conceptualized" is necessarily true. I think it is possible to experience reality - noumena or the Tao - directly without conceptualization.

A mental image of a chiliagon cannot be clearly distinguished from a mental image of a 1,002-sided figure, or even from a mental image of a circle.The concept of a chiliagon is clearly distinct from the concept of a 1,002-sided figure or the concept of a circle. Likewise I cannot clearly differentiate a mental image of a crowd of one million people from a mental image of a crowd of 900,000 people. But reason easily grasps the difference between the concept of a crowd of one million people and the concept of a crowd of 900,000 people (from Ed Feser). — Quixodian

Maybe I've misunderstood. Are you saying that the difficulty in picturing a chiiliagon is the same as that for picturing noumena? That's certainly not how I understand it.