No soldiers better than coerced soldiers. — Confucius

No, parents and politicians. — unenlightened

Yes, quite sure. "Rule" is an ill-defined entity that can be an axiom, a law, a tautology or simply a statistical likelihood. It's a well known saying much used by parents and politicians to excuse their hypocrisy. — unenlightened

increased CO2 could trigger reglaciation. — Tate

Ouch!

I wish I could think of an intelligent response. Of course, there are logical similarities with Russell's Paradox and the Cretan Liar. But right now I can't think of a knock-down philosophical analysis (memo to self: ease up on the Semillon when browsing philosophy forums!) — alan1000

I think 1 is true and 2 is false. — Bartricks

A "rule without exception" is, ceteris paribus, equivalent to a tautology (i.e. inapplicable) — 180 Proof

1. is a colloquialism, not meant to be taken seriously. — jgill

The practical activity one is obliging oneself to engage in by judging and acting is integrating those new commitments into a unified whole comprising all the other commitments one acknowledges…. Engaging in those integrative activities is synthesizing a self or subject, which shows up as what is responsible for the component commitments” (ibid).

A self or subject in this usage is not something that just exists. It is a guiding aim that is itself subject to development. “[T]he synthetic-integrative process, with its aspects of critical and ampliative activity [rejecting incompatibilities and developing consequences] provides the basis for understanding both the subjective and the objective poles of the intentional nexus. Subjects are what repel incompatible commitments in that they ought not to endorse them, and objects are what repel incompatible properties in that they cannot exhibit them” (p. 53).
...
Upstream from all of this, according to Brandom, is “Kant’s normative understanding of mental activity” (ibid). This is closely bound up with what he calls Kant’s “radically original conception of freedom” (ibid). In the Latin medieval and early modern traditions, questions about freedom were considered to be in a broad sense questions of fact about our power. For Kant, all such questions of fact apply only to the domain of represented objects. On the other hand, “Practical freedom is an aspect of the spontaneity of discursive activity on the subjective side” (pp. 58-59).

“The positive freedom exhibited by exercises of our spontaneity is just this normative ability: the ability to commit ourselves, to become responsible. It can be thought of as a kind of authority: the authority to bind oneself by conceptual norms” (p. 59). Brandom recalls Kant’s example of a young person reaching legal adulthood. “Suddenly, she has the authority to bind herself legally, for instance by entering into contracts. That gives her a host of new abilities: to borrow money, take out a mortgage, start a business. The new authority to bind oneself normatively… involves a huge increase in positive freedom” (ibid).

Rationality for Kant does not consist in having good reasons. “It consists rather just in being in the space of reasons” (p. 60), in being liable to specific kinds of normative assessment. — Pie

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

But how do you know it is not identical. — Merkwurdichliebe

I am only saying that from one point of view it appears indivisible, and from another it appears divisible. I am only saying that this is how it appears from differing perspectives, and I suspect that where they intersect, we may find a better depiction of the truth of it all Perhaps, if we could adquately define a third perspective, we could triangulate the reality of the mind's singularity. Any thoughts, you're very intelligent? — Merkwurdichliebe

In fact, the first philosopher in the West to give perfectly explicit expression to cosmopolitanism was the Socratically inspired Cynic Diogenes in the fourth century BCE. It is said that “when he was asked where he came from, he replied, 'I am a citizen of the world [kosmopolitês]'” (Diogenes Laertius VI 63). — Cosmpolitanism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I think you follow fine. I'm not trying to be clever. If I get you, you are saying that mind trumps sense in all cases. Correct? — Merkwurdichliebe

What's the end game, if we were to grant you the indivisibility of mind ? Do you turn the crank on your logic machine until God pops out? — Pie

it is quite simple. From mind perspective it is divisible. From sense perspective it is indivisible. The two perspectives impose upon each other within a singular organism, causing major confusion amongst philosophers on TPF. — Merkwurdichliebe

You are a wikipedia paraphrasing bot. — Bartricks

around 50,000 years — Wikipedia

126. Philosophy simply puts everything before us, and neither explains nor deduces anything.—Since everything lies open to view there is nothing to explain. — Jackson

This. We can end this thread here and now. — Benkei

That's a fair summary. :up: — 180 Proof

eye contact — Noble Dust

How can nothing be something?! — Greeks

The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles after. — Wikipedia

It's not about that. — schopenhauer1

Hugh — Bartricks

You are obviously trying to be a douche. The vast majority of soldiers are not murderers and should not be treated like murderers. Unless they actually murdered someone. Then of course their military status is nothing to hide behind.

Your likening of soldiers to pro-choicers is kind of odd. Being pro-choice is a political position, whereas being a soldier is a job. The pro-choicer doesn't have to kill if they don't want to, but a soldier might have to kill even if they don't want to. The soldier follows orders, the pro-choicer just gets triggered.

And the stereotypical philosophy forum douche accents their inane contributions with French and Latin expressions instead of putting up quality posts. — ToothyMaw

Pro tip: We live on the surface of the Earth which is not navigable body in space whereas astronauts live inside a navigable spaceship; ergo, inapt metaphor – Earth is not a "spaceship". :nerd: LLAP — 180 Proof

that is awesome! I've always wanted to ride in a spaceship :nerd: — Merkwurdichliebe

what is math? What does it study? — Manuel