Republicans don't want to investigate because of the time it would take. If Democrats take the Senate in November, they'll leave the Supreme Court seat vacant hoping to win the presidency in 2020.

This is why the Democrats dragged their feet on even having a hearing until yesterday.

A general comment upon the value of philosophy....

In most human situations it's common for there to be one or more memorized group consensus positions which get repeated over and over again. Nobody has the time or ability to carefully think through literally every situation which arises, so we tend to often just pick a side, join a group consensus herd, and then wave that flag. This case seems a pretty good illustration of that, given that the vast majority of us probably had made up our minds on this situation before hearing any testimony, and whatever was said yesterday is simply being used to support the conclusion we'd already come to, based on what social grouping we typically associate ourselves with. This is the way of the world and it's never going to change so we have to accept it and keep on living.

However, this is not the way of philosophy, imho. The role of the philosopher is to examine and challenge any group consensus from the outside, not as a flag waving loyalist of any particular team. Any group consensus by anybody anywhere has the potential to be dramatically wrong, and so the philosopher provides a valuable function by kicking the tires of the group consensus, any group consensus, to see if that group consensus can withstand a determined assault.

Imho, philosophers diminish their role by simply repeating a group consensus being endlessly repeated on every cable TV channel, whatever that group consensus might be. While the polarized partisans chant their memorized slogans in the public square, the philosopher should be looking to explore some angle which is not already being examined. The philosopher should be looking to add something to the conversation.

A philosopher can, and perhaps should, function as an attorney for whatever position everyone else assumes without questioning to be incorrect. Just as with attorney's, the philosopher's own personal opinion is not what's important, but what matters instead is how well the philosopher can make the case that few of us wish to hear.

The current cultural melodrama being examined in this thread has predictably devolved in to the usual flag waving partisan political shouting match with everyone chanting memorized slogans they have absorbed from those around them. Such is the nature of the public square.

If philosophers are not able or willing to transcend these predictable patterns in some manner or another, there's really little to justify their existence.

Ah yes, the supreme act of philosophical rebellion: taking for granted the well-positioned, power-wielding, politically and institutionally backed man of the elite, coiffed class. Contrarity overwhelming! Can you imagine not giving him the benefit of the doubt? How scandalous. What's the point of philosophy if it's not as a lapdog to power?

It's not about that. It's about the Supreme Court leaning to the right.

No it's about philosophical principles!!! :death:

Oh yea, I forgot.

I listened earlier today to the testimonies. So far I lean around 60% to believing Brett, and 40% for Dr. Ford. If I were the President, I probably would replace Kavannaugh with someone else just to move things faster and avoid all this chaos and uncertainty.

I have no doubt that someone tried to rape Dr. Ford (she's not making that up), but I have doubts that Brett was the one. Psychologically, it is possible, especially in the case of traumatic events, not to remember who the perpetrator was.

Furthermore, there are some inconsistencies in Dr. Ford's testimony. First, she has asked for several corrections to the written material she had already submitted in the past. Second, she got the advice of her lawyers at all times. Third, she said at one point that there were 4 people in the house, her and 3 boys. Then she said there was also another girl. She seemed confused about the number of people. And fourth, she said they took her in a room, LOCKED THE DOOR, turned the music up loud, and then Brett jumped on top of her. When Mark Judge jumped on the bed, apparently Brett fell on the floor, and she ran away. How did she run away? If the door was locked, and they locked it on purpose, wouldn't Mark Judge who was watching, take the key in his pocket? Would he leave the key there, so that she could somehow escape? And even if he did leave the key there, how come she had the time to open the door, go to the bathroom, and lock herself in there until the two guys came in?

On the other side, if Brett really did do this, then obviously he would not want this to be known, even if he doesn't get to be a Supreme Court judge, because, presumably, his wife and kids don't know about it, and would obviously be very disappointed in him. Brett's testimony seemed more consistent though, and more based on evidence. Apart from the refusal to answer the questions about the FBI investigation, and him getting lost in his words at times, I didn't see something suspicious.

wouldn't Mark Judge who was watching, take the key in his pocket? Would he leave the key there, so that she could somehow escape? — Agustino

You are assuming that they locked the door to prevent her from escaping. They may have locked the door so that nobody would walk in on them unexpectedly. They were drunk and may have expected, or hoped, that she would go along with their game with just a minimum of duress. Taking the key out might have been an unnecessarily threatening gesture (assuming there was a key at all; it may have been an interior spring door lock that you merely twist or depress). According to Ford, they were laughing a lot. Not all rapes or attempted rapes are premeditated.

No it's about philosophical principles!!! — StreetlightX

It could be. If there were philosophers in attendance.

:vomit:

It could be. If there were philosophers in attendance. — Jake

John Kennedy has a PPE degree.

You couldn't get away with that in the UK, you'd be slaughtered in the media. — Baden

Perhaps there was a time when this was true. These days, when truth can no longer be discovered or proven using facts, but only created by constant repetition ( :fear: ), the rich and powerful can do much as they like. :cry:

the rich and powerful can do much as they like. — Pattern-chaser

I think we can both agree that "doing as much as you like" (or acting according to your whims) is immoral. Do you reckon the poor & weak have a monopoly on morality? You seem to just be more resentful of those who have worked harder than you have.

Another thing that makes Kavanaugh suspect for me is the number of female friends he has. It seems a bit strange for a man to have that many female friends, and not to have been romantically involved with at least a few of them.

Republicans don't want to investigate because of the time it would take. If Democrats take the Senate in November, they'll leave the Supreme Court seat vacant hoping to win the presidency in 2020.

This is why the Democrats dragged their feet on even having a hearing until yesterday. — frank

I really wish the Judicial branch was entirely independent from all the politics of the other two branches, but I guess that's part of the checks and balances.

Still, it bothers me that Supreme Court judges are often nominated according to how the ruling party in power thinks they will rule on certain issues.

Another thing that makes Kavanaugh suspect for me is the number of female friends he has. — Agustino

Why do you say such crazy things? I mean, I'll accept that you and your friends tend not to have female friends, but why would it arouse suspicion in you that someone has a personality that simply varies from your own?

I don't know any man who has many female friends and has not been romantically involved with at least some of them. I think it's normal to have some female friends of the opposite sex. I take a look at my male cousins (they are all married), some close male friends - none of them have many female friends at all. There is certainly a tension there - for example, if you are in a relationship/marriage, it's a bit strange to spend time with female friends rather frequently, away from your girlfriend/wife - it creates distrust in the relationship. Now you can ignore this tension, or you can say that you will just withstand its effects, but you cannot say it doesn't exist.

As for why it arouses suspicion, it's because the people I have seen who seem to be around female friends frequently, they all tend to be or have been romantically involved with at least a some of them. My issue is not that their personality is different, but rather that I don't believe that there can be, with a few exceptions, relationships between men and women without a sexual element.

I have disproportionately more lady friends than I do guy friends. But I'm not going to make weird generalizations based on that.

You seem to just be more resentful of those who have worked harder than you have. — Agustino

Really? You actually think that those who are rich and powerful gained this position by working harder than others do/did?

I have disproportionately more lady friends than I do guy friends. — StreetlightX

And have you been romantically involved with some of them? :razz:

Really? You actually think that those who are rich and powerful gained this position by working harder than others do/did? — Pattern-chaser

Well certainly not all of them did gain their position that way, but it certainly requires a lot of work to keep it. And of course, some of them did gain it. Most billionaire out there, for example, are self-made.

This isn't fair. I have so many male friends and I have been romantically involved with all of them!

working harder — Pattern-chaser

Also, what I meant by working harder, is working harder with the accumulation of wealth as the purpose. If you just work hard with another purpose, say, becoming the best at your craft, then you may not become as wealthy as you could if you worked hard with this as your purpose.

And have you been romantically involved with some of them? :razz: — Agustino

I also have disproportionally more lady non-ex friends than I do lady friend exs!

I also have disproportionally more lady non-ex friends than I do lady friend exs! — StreetlightX

Yes, so do some of the other men I've known who have many female friends. I certainly wouldn't have expected you to have been romantically involved with most of them.

Indeed. The curse of bi-sexuality -- the indelible lust corrupting all friendships into an eternal tension between erotic pleasure and platonic love.

Not fair indeed. Poor me.

The role of the philosopher is to examine and challenge any group consensus from the outside, not as a flag waving loyalist of any particular team. Any group consensus by anybody anywhere has the potential to be dramatically wrong, and so the philosopher provides a valuable function by kicking the tires of the group consensus, any group consensus, to see if that group consensus can withstand a determined assault.

Imho, philosophers diminish their role by simply repeating a group consensus being endlessly repeated on every cable TV channel, whatever that group consensus might be. While the polarized partisans chant their memorized slogans in the public square, the philosopher should be looking to explore some angle which is not already being examined. The philosopher should be looking to add something to the conversation. — Jake

Thank you for the good points! I think what deserves our attention and analyses is the situation when both Kavanaugh and Ford acted, played and performed as actors; yet, in comparison with theatre, they played and represented their own lives and biographies. (By the way, while playing a role, is an actor honest?) The real facts of their lives were entirely overshadowed by the quality and persuasiveness of their performances, and most commentators were talking just about who made a better impression. What is important here is not truth itself, but the condition of the whole game, which make some enunciations looking more or less truthful.

I'm basically Brett Kavanagh. Without the alleged attempted rape stuff.

I also have disproportionally more lady non-ex friends than I do lady friend exs! — StreetlightX

That's because your exes were far from being ladies.

Excellent points.

If philosophers are not able or willing to transcend these predictable patterns in some manner or another, there's really little to justify their existence.

A great topic for a new thread.