No, but you should show evidence that human beings are moral. So far, you've provided nothing but empty speculation. — Agustino

We have laws which are, for a large part obeyed.

No, it's ridiculous to think communication is unnatural - that's what's ridiculous. — Agustino

The ability to communicate is learned isn't it? Haven't you opposed learned with natural? Why do you now contradict yourself claiming it's ridiculous to think of communication as unnatural? Surely languages are artificial. Don't you believe that language is artificial?

What is the base state, the natural state, call it however you want to call it - of mankind? — Agustino

I think the idea of a "base state", or "natural state" of the human being is a very strange idea. What could it possibly be referring to? Are you referring to a baby, a foetus, the ovum at conception? Any designation of such a "base state" would be completely arbitrary. What could you possibly be trying to get at here, with your assumption of a "state" at the base? I know, such an arbitrary base state would only be assumed to support your division between natural and learned. Below the base is natural, above the base is learned. Give it up, learned vs. natural is an untenable division.

Clearly you've dismissed the proverbial tabula rasa in favour of a "base state", but why ask me what it consists of? I am not the one who is assuming such a "base state". I think of living beings in terms of actualizing potential, so I am more inclined towards the tabula rasa perspective. I assume an active base of life, not a state.

But it seems apparent you have no problem with holding such a dumb idea. As I told you before, you often remind me of the armchair philosopher, who has little experience with the world. — Agustino

What's the point with the garbage ad hominem? One can hole oneself up on the arm chair for many years, reading vast amounts of material. If reading is not "experience with the world", then what is "experience with the world", and what advantage is it supposed to give the philosopher? You know that reading gives one access to many other peoples' "experience with the world", don't you?

As someone who's radically sceptical of everything except what comes out his own mouth, it's pretty obvious you only accept that article as 'fact' because it supports what you already believe.

We have laws which are, for a large part obeyed. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why do we need to have laws if morality is the natural condition? To me, the very fact that we have laws and punishments for breaking the law suggests that the human being is not naturally moral, but requires external pressure and force to be kept in check (the law + its enforcement).

Don't you believe that language is artificial? — Metaphysician Undercover

A particular language is artificial, but the capacity to speak a language is not artificial. It's natural for human beings to communicate verbally through some sort of language.

I think of living beings in terms of actualizing potential, so I am more inclined towards the tabula rasa perspective. I assume an active base of life, not a state. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well this has been pretty much settled already. The tabula rasa perspective is nonsense as shown by Plato (anamnesis), Kant, and modern biology. The mind comes with a pre-established neuro-biological structure which determines its capacities, tendencies, and possibilities. I don't much like Pinker, but this book is good on this subject, to put you up to date with some of the modern developments of biology and the social sciences.

As someone who's radically sceptical of everything except what comes out his own mouth, it's pretty obvious you only accept that article as 'fact' because it supports what you already believe. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Have you presented to me some opposing statistics and I missed them? :s

What's the point with the garbage ad hominem? One can hole oneself up on the arm chair for many years, reading vast amounts of material. If reading is not "experience with the world", then what is "experience with the world", and what advantage is it supposed to give the philosopher? You know that reading gives one access to many other peoples' "experience with the world", don't you? — Metaphysician Undercover

Reading is not experience of the world for the simple reason that when you read, you're interacting with second hand information, which may be inaccurate - the respective author may not have perceived fully or completely the matters that he's describing - or if he has, he may have failed to adequately or completely convey them.

That's why the greatest philosophers in history have been, first and foremost, keen observers of reality, and only secondly readers of philosophy. Take for example Plato, Aristotle, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein to list a couple. Their insights came not from what they read, but rather from their own observations - that's why they were geniuses, because they perceived deeper than others before them had perceived. Their own insights enabled them - taking for example Schopenhauer - to synthesise Kant, Plato, and Eastern wisdom into something completely new.

What made them special wasn't the breadth of their study, but their perception. So that's why I'm telling you that you seem to have just armchair knowledge. Yes, it seems to me from reading your posts that you are very familiar with Platonic/Aristotelian concepts, but I'm not interested in that. Philosophy isn't just playing with words. I'm interested in actual, practical knowledge that is relevant in the world. So when you get lost in discussing small technicalities and this and that - it seems to me that you're purposefully refusing to see the main insight I'm presenting to you. It's like quibbling over a mathematical truth, because there's a missed step in my proof.

So look - the purpose of philosophy from the very beginning was finding wisdom in order to live the best life possible. The technicalities are superficialities - they are only as useful as they serve that purpose. An armchair philosopher remains stuck in the technicalities and does nothing to advance wisdom or teach the good life.

Have you presented to me some opposing statistics and I missed them? — Agustino

..no, for reasons you had literally just quoted. Keep up.

..no, for reasons you had literally just quoted. Keep up. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yeah, give me a shout out when you start making sense please.

Why do we need to have laws if morality is the natural condition? To me, the very fact that we have laws and punishments for breaking the law suggests that the human being is not naturally moral, but requires external pressure and force to be kept in check (the law + its enforcement). — Agustino

Do you not realize that I can just throw your own argument right back at you to address this issue? Take a look at what you say about "the capacity to speak a language".

A particular language is artificial, but the capacity to speak a language is not artificial. It's natural for human beings to communicate verbally through some sort of language. — Agustino

So, the capacity to follow laws, and be moral is not artificial, but it's natural for human beings to follow some sort of moral codes and laws when they are given them to follow. Therefore morality is natural. Of course there is a lot of slang, and distorted language use out there, because people don't necessarily follow the rules of language use, just like they don't necessarily follow the laws of morality.

But now we've reduced these things to the capacity to learn, saying that they don't actually exist prior to be learned. So we're moving right into the tabula rasa theory now. It holds that the blank slate is the capacity to learn. When we're born, we have the capacity to learn any language, but we only learn particular ones. Likewise, we have the capacity to follow any moral codes, but we only learn to follow particular ones.

Well this has been pretty much settled already. The tabula rasa perspective is nonsense as shown by Plato (anamnesis), Kant, and modern biology. The mind comes with a pre-established neuro-biological structure which determines its capacities, tendencies, and possibilities. I don't much like Pinker, but this book is good on this subject, to put you up to date with some of the modern developments of biology and the social sciences. — Agustino

OK, so let's say that there are particular capacities which are predetermined by the physical structure of the brain. This does not refute the tabula rasa perspective. Tabula rasa does not imply infinite capacity. The perspective holds that particular capacities are like a blank slate, the conscious mind being one such capacity. The blank slate has the capacity to have something written on it, it doesn't have the capacity to do anything. It does not hold that any particular capacity is absolute. Of course a capacity is limited by the physical structure of the being. No one would claim that a mouse is born with the capacity to reason.

I find it very odd that you would use the tabula rasa perspective to defend your claim that it is "natural" for human beings to use language, then turn around to say that this perspective is "nonsense". What's with the double standard? Tabula rasa is acceptable when it supports your claim, but it's nonsense when it supports my claim.

Reading is not experience of the world for the simple reason that when you read, you're interacting with second hand information, which may be inaccurate - the respective author may not have perceived fully or completely the matters that he's describing - or if he has, he may have failed to adequately or completely convey them. — Agustino

OK, so a book is not a part of the world. That's a lie. And it makes no difference if the book is fact or fiction, it's still part of the world.

That's why the greatest philosophers in history have been, first and foremost, keen observers of reality, and only secondly readers of philosophy. Take for example Plato, Aristotle, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein to list a couple. Their insights came not from what they read, but rather from their own observations - that's why they were geniuses, because they perceived deeper than others before them had perceived. Their own insights enabled them - taking for example Schopenhauer - to synthesise Kant, Plato, and Eastern wisdom into something completely new. — Agustino

That's a load of crap. All of those philosophers mentioned were well schooled, which means lots of reading. And I've read some from each of them. I see that they have built upon the ideas of others. They did not get their philosophy from going out and perceiving things with their senses. Your statement, "that they perceived deeper than others before them had perceived" appears as nonsense. What are you saying, that their eyes could see deeper into the substances in the world? That's nonsense. Or is it the case that you are really saying that they could think deeper into the subject? If it's the latter, then why must one leave the armchair, and go "experience the world", in order to have success in perceiving deeper.

So look - the purpose of philosophy from the very beginning was finding wisdom in order to live the best life possible. — Agustino

Didn't Aristotle determine that the life of contemplation is the best possible life? Doesn't leaving the armchair, and the life of contemplation, bring one down to a lower form of existence?

I would, if you were worthy of some attention. — Banno

Funny guy. And an ironic statement.

Do you not realize that I can just throw your own argument right back at you to address this issue? — Metaphysician Undercover

No.

So, the capacity to follow laws, and be moral is not artificial, but it's natural for human beings to follow some sort of moral codes and laws when they are given them to follow. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it's not natural for human beings to follow moral codes and laws when they are provided. That's precisely why we have to use harsh punishments to get them to follow the laws. If you removed the punishments, you'd see that naturally - without the use of external force - human beings would not comply with moral codes and laws.

OK, so let's say that there are particular capacities which are predetermined by the physical structure of the brain. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not only about capacities here. It's also about tendencies, reactions, instincts, etc. Just like you have certain physical features you inherit from your parents, you also have some mental features.

The blank slate has the capacity to have something written on it — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, the point is there is something written in there already.

What's with the double standard? Tabula rasa is acceptable when it supports your claim, but it's nonsense when it supports my claim. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nope, I haven't made use of the tabula rasa perspective. Where do you see that I have?

OK, so a book is not a part of the world. — Metaphysician Undercover

Don't be silly. A book is part of the world, but the things that it refers to aren't necessarily parts of the world (in the case of fiction for example, they aren't). Identifying the referents doesn't involve just reading, but your own experience too. If I describe you an apple, and you've never seen one before, it's not likely that you'd be able to instantly identify it when you first see it. Your own experience is relevant in making sense of what you read.

All of those philosophers mentioned were well schooled, which means lots of reading. — Metaphysician Undercover

They didn't have access to anywhere near as much reading material as you do today - referring here to Aristotle, and Plato. Most of the concepts they had developed, they developed by themselves, through their own perceptions and experiments. And yeah, no doubt that philosophers were well-schooled, I'm just saying that being well-schooled, in and of itself, isn't sufficient to be a great philosopher.

What are you saying, that their eyes could see deeper into the substances in the world? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's perception that makes the difference, not thought. Thought merely re-arranges what is already given in perception.

Talent is able to achieve what is beyond other people’s capacity to achieve, yet not what is beyond their capacity of apprehension; therefore it at once finds its appreciators. The achievement of genius, on the other hand, transcends not only others’ capacity of achievement, but also their capacity of apprehension; therefore they do not become immediately aware of it. Talent is like the marksman who hits a target which others cannot reach; genius is like the marksman who hits a target … which others cannot even see. — WWR Vol II Chapter XXXI

That's Schopenhauer. Good information about this is also found in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance if you have read it.

Didn't Aristotle determine that the life of contemplation is the best possible life? Doesn't leaving the armchair, and the life of contemplation, bring one down to a lower form of existence? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, because contemplation isn't the same as sitting in the armchair lost in thoughts. It's actively engaged with, observing and being in touch with the world.

Just want to chime in with a thought: we're not exactly in a post-truth world yet (post modernism hasn't found a strong enough poison with which to dope it's blade) but we ARE in so many ways living in a post-reason world.

"Facts", evidence, and reason are no longer the sole prime movers of journalism and news media. Mainstream "popular" culture and parts of academia have bought in to a moral economy based on feelings and outrage, and widespread backlash to this is culminating in growing distaste for the mainstream media (Fox included), along with a fascinating (and perhaps now subsiding) internet war of trolls and ideologues (see: the rise of Kek).

No, it's not natural for human beings to follow moral codes and laws when they are provided. That's precisely why we have to use harsh punishments to get them to follow the laws. If you removed the punishments, you'd see that naturally - without the use of external force - human beings would not comply with moral codes and laws. — Agustino

Huh, that's odd, I wonder why the entire population is not in jail then.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's perception that makes the difference, not thought. — Agustino

I see your point. You think that some people have X-ray eyes, and this makes them better philosophers.

Today's installment is Trump's first Cabinet meeting with everyone assembled singing praises to the greatness of Dear Leader:

The meeting, held before press cameras and microphones, began with US President Donald Trump going around the table to ask each attendee their thoughts, particularly those pertaining to his glory, leadership and success.

Vice-President Mike Pence called working for Trump "the greatest privilege of my life", and the hosannas rose higher from there.

Source

It's very similar to the faux 'Campaign Rallies' that Trump holds every few weeks to re-inflate the Presidential ego when it has been bruised by the testimony of public officials and cruel treatment by the horrid 'fake press'.

This fawning adulation is what Trump means by 'loyalty' - he has to be sorrounded by people telling him how great he is, and what a great job he's doing.

Huh, that's odd, I wonder why the entire population is not in jail then. — Metaphysician Undercover

They're not in jail because they fear punishment for breaking the law, therefore they don't do it. Simple. It's not because they love the law.

I see your point. You think that some people have X-ray eyes, and this makes them better philosophers. — Metaphysician Undercover

No but perception is important. Not all people perceive the same. It's your fault for thinking they do. And this isn't a matter of eyes, but a matter of consciousness, attentiveness, interest, etc.

Right, and behold here is dear crybaby Wayfarer who is still not over the loss of Crooked. In the next 4 years, we'll have the honour to see him crying about his boss Trump weekly.

Sigh...

Although I've read much, I haven't read the entire thread. Too much irrelevance. I have watched it devolve. Here's how I'd begin talking about 'post truth'...

There are many who call the current political discourse in American politics(particularly when talking about the right wing media talking points along with the president's own words) "post-truth" as a result of the sheer quantity of demonstrably false statements of thought/belief being bandied about as though they were true. There are many many more who quite simply have little to no clue what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so(a necessary prerequisite for continuing to hold demonstrably false belief(s) despite being falsified). That's a big problem. Add to that the overwhelming propensity of media talking heads to begin with an utterly inadequate linguistic framework accompanied by the financial need to keep folk tuned in by whatever means necessary, and you'll quickly notice the inevitably self-perpetuated confusion. Sadly, I cannot help but to note that much of this arose from those with unshakable conviction in false belief who remain ignorant by sheer will alone(conflate their own thought/belief and it's source with truth) and those who've - for whatever reason - who have allowed and honored(often unknowingly, and yet other times clearly not) such religious 'theft' of discursive means by virtue of accepting that particular use of the term "truth" in order to reject other aspects of the religion/belief system, while simultaneously throwing out, and/or neglecting all other notions of truth.

The problem(hinted at directly above) is simple to identify but much more difficult to correct:Most folk simply do not know what sorts of things can be true/false and what makes them so. As a direct result of disregarding truth and the role that it plays in all thought/belief and statements thereof, many people nowadays have a very hard time knowing what to believe and why. As it pertains to politics, American or otherwise, the way a topic is framed in language - the actual words used to talk about a topic - will largely determine which aspects of the topic can be sensibly discussed by virtue of establishing the terminology being used to do so. All too often folk get mired in thought and discussion by virtue of adopting an utterly inadequate linguistic framework. Any and all frameworks which cannot take account of what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so is inherently lacking explanatory power where it matters most, especially in this political context(post-truth world). Thus, the opposing narratives both claim their own truth, as they must - assuming sincerity in speech. Yet I often find myself wondering if any one of them could explain what makes a statement true/false, and better yet which ones, if any, could identify a lie.

Banno's earlier addition regarding the difference between being a bullshitter and a liar has the potential to become enlightening, but it all starts with having a good grasp upon how thought/belief is formed and the role that truth plays in all of this...

Thanks, Creative. Although I am always pleased to see one of my threads thrive, I've not spent much effort in following this one.

The thread started out with an argument that a post-truth world will inevitably collapse because it ignores what is the case. I was thinking about what one of our mutual friends, of loving memory, might say about post-truth; that if truth is only what we say it is, then there can be no such thing as post-truth.

In a way, Trump's administration can be seen as a test; If Landru were right, then Trump will be able to continue in his office. If not, truth will at some stage catch up with him.

about his boss Trump — Agustino

Not Wayfarer's boss. As a non-citizen and non-resident of the greatest country on Earth, he is not subject to the rule of the Orange One. I imagine his posts on the subject are pure Christian sympathy for those that, through no fault of their own, are.

Not Wayfarer's boss. — andrewk

Well, he most certainly is, because apparently Wayfarer keeps talking about him day in and day out.

Interesting.

To justify that 'because', it appears that one of your fundamental axioms is:

for all X and all Y, if X talks about Y a lot then Y is the boss of X

It would appear then, that Satan is the boss of many Evangelical preachers - a great opportunity for me to plug my latest essay.

Sorry Banno. Didn't see that reply. At best, the US govt. is in a very sad state. Donald Trump is living proof that intelligence and wealth are not connected, for he is a prima facie example of quite the contrary.

Where's Landru?

Where's Landru? — creativesoul

Landru said about 14 months ago that Trump represents the American ID - those who want to say, f*** government, f*** muslims, f*** mexicans, f*** everyone that doesn't agree with me, but aren't allowed to say it. There's some truth in that, but there's also much more to it than that.

Banno's earlier addition regarding the difference between being a bullshitter and a liar has the potential to become enlightening, — creativesoul

Actually I think I introduced that distinction earlier in the thread, on the basis of an opinion piece in Vox.

As Frankfurt put it in his groundbreaking essay “On Bullshit,” “one of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit.”

Frankfurt attempts to give the term definition that distinguishes the bullshitter from the liar, with the most salient distinction being that the liar is genuinely trying to trick you.

“The bullshitter,” by contrast, “may not deceive us, or even intend to do so, either about the facts or about what he takes the facts to be.”

The liar wants to be seen as the one telling the truth. The bullshitter just doesn’t care. That’s Trump. During the course of the 2016 campaign, he said over and over again that America is “the highest-taxed nation in the world,” which isn’t even remotely close to being true. But he kept saying it, despite having been called out repeatedly, and then he said it again in a recent interview with The Economist.

And today the NY Times published the definitive list of Trump's lies, noting that

There is simply no precedent for an American president to spend so much time telling untruths. Every president has shaded the truth or told occasional whoppers. No other president — of either party — has behaved as Trump is behaving. He is trying to create an atmosphere in which reality is irrelevant.

...[Trump] said something untrue, in public, every day for the first 40 days of his presidency.

Hey Jeep!

Interesting. Thanks for the reply, and the bit I mistakenly attributed to Banno. I have my own thought/belief about Trump, and presuming the rendition above is accurate, nothing Landru said strikes me as wrong.

The NY Times has accused Trump of deliberately misrepresenting his own thought/belief. That carries a very heavy burden of proof.


Stating a falsehood is not equivalent to lying. Nor does lying require stating falsehood.

To prove that Trump is lying, the prosecution must provide adequate evidence that he does not believe what he said(whatever the purported lie is).

which it provides in spades....it has pages of statements of his which are shown to be false, in some cases apparently deliberate falsehoods, in others misleading statements, confused statements, or erroneous statements.

I saw no proof that Trump didn't believe himself, but I didn't really give it due attention. Too many obviously not proven claims to want to further continue.

Donald Trump is living proof that intelligence and wealth are not connected, for he is a prima facie example of quite the contrary. — creativesoul

Trump may be immoral in some regards, but he's certainly not stupid - that's definitely out of the question. If he was stupid he would have destroyed all the fortune left to him, not grown it, nor would he have become President.

Wayfarer, I see you're back on track with the anti-Trump campaign! X-) Maybe they should make a pill for you to calm down, and get over Clinton's loss. Trump is not a great President in some regards, but he's definitely better than Clinton and her cronies.

Trump may be immoral in some regards, but he's certainly not stupid - that's definitely out of the question. If he was stupid he would have destroyed all the fortune left to him, not grown it, nor would he have become President.

Trump lacks intelligence. He did not lack knowledge regarding how to find people that could be paid in order to get what he wanted.

Trump lacks intelligence. He did not lack knowledge regarding how to find people that could be paid in order to get what he wanted. — creativesoul

I beg to disagree with you. If you think Trump lacks intelligence, you're extraordinarily naive:

I don't argue by virtue of googling til I find someone I agree with to make my argument for me.

I don't argue by virtue of googling til I find someone I agree with to make my argument for me. — creativesoul

No, you should listen to what the guy has to say about it. I'm not arguing based on the fact that someone agrees with me, I just gave you a source which has a nice argument for it, so that I don't have to re-state the same thing. Your refusal to even listen to it is pathetic.