But if you know that Cicero wrote De Officiis, it does not follow that you know that Tully wrote De Officiis, despite Tull=Cicero. — Banno

Knows is an intensional operator. That knowledge has this intensional aspect puts weight to the idea that knowledge is about a relationship between a knower and an object of thought.

How do we know what is real? It hurts! — karl stone

Aspirin makes the world disappear.

What's wrong with saying knowledge is a relationship between a knower and a proposition?

That basic illusion, the so-called "façade of life", is the fundamental claim to facticity itself, supported by that principal postulate, of a real distinction between appearance and essence, which justifies factuality at its base. Smashing that façade is what provides to the subject, freedom of thought, happiness of thought, and depth of speculation, to go beyond those conventional limits which formulate "what is the case", facticity. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: Essence is the unchanging core of an object, the idea. Appearance is the transient expression of the core, alive in time, like music, unfolding out of itself. Any object is the dynamic tension between the two. We do move in a domain of ideas, but if we let those become concrete to us, it's like we're living in a dictionary. Life won't tolerate that for long.

I am not talking about the reality in China, I am talking about normative claims. The current reality in China is that the people cannot decide which public demands the government should achieve. China has had a period of time when economic development was at the center, and the future of local government officials was strongly correlated with economic data. I think it is right to use clear standards to guide government behavior. — panwei

Imagine a point when there is unrest among the people, perhaps people in Chinese cities who aren't receiving public support because they have left the countryside. The government will have to make them a priority eventually, or an event will take place that wounds the soul of China. That's often how governments respond, not through democracy, but because the cost of being unresponsive is greater than preserving the status quo. That's true in the USA as well. There are mechanisms of the US government that resist popular demand. There are many of them. The goal of those mechanisms is to make it so popular demand has to be very strong in order to make significant changes in direction. That's supposed to keep government priorities from flipping back and forth, but it's not working right now. Something has changed so that the US is like a loose cannon, swinging one way, then the other.

:grin:

Perhaps it's better explained if we consider the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Some might say that if the many-worlds interpretation is correct then there is a world in which I won the lottery. And I would counter by saying that none of the people who exist in these parallel universes are me. I just am the person who exists in this universe, and any person from a parallel universe who superficially resembles me – in appearance and name and background – only resembles me and shouldn't be thought of as being me. — Michael

This is the issue Kripke was addressing, yes.

Therefore, it is a reasonable arrangement to be eliminated if you fail, except that your current elimination criterion is votes, while the criterion I advocate is "the extent to which the people's public demands are realized." — panwei

You have candidates who were in charge of various provinces, and each is evaluated in terms of meeting public demands. The winner is chosen as the supreme leader. Is that right?

Didn’t Kamala Devi Harris get eliminated? — panwei

She lost the election, yes.

Wasn’t Biden eliminated after his election defeat? — panwei

He eliminated himself. He decided not to run.

Not so sure about this. First of all, I don't take "If I were Barack Obama . . . " as a genuine reference to a possible world. For me, this is loose talk for "Barack Obama should have. . . " — J

Could be.

If we insist on pressing this hypothetical, we run up against Kripke: "You can't be Obama; he was born of different parents." And I think this is right. "If I were Obama . . . " etc. reads like a meaningful sentence but that's an illusion. — J

I think I could define myself Cartesian style, so I'm just conscious of various things. Combine that with a very fluid sense of identity and strong sense of empathy, and I can honestly imagine being in your shoes to some extent. If you reject that line of thought, then yes, such talk couldn't reflect the way you actually think.

We've crossed over from loose talk into nonsense. — J

Again, I think this probably comes down to temperament. I can't tolerate being pigeon-holed. I need to see through other people's eyes, so I can imagine possible worlds where I'm somebody else, or a rock. I'd love being a rock.

Due to translation issues, a misunderstanding occurred earlier. What I mean is, 'If the competition fails, you will be eliminated. This is a reasonable arrangement, not a weakness, and there is no need to explain it further.'. — panwei

Ok. I was trying to explain that we don't eliminate people just because they fail. Failing is a valuable source of knowledge. A leader could become smarter and stronger through experiencing failure, so it's potentially beneficial in the long run. When there's an election, we don't just think about achieving a particular goal, although that's important. We also think about the character of the person we're electing. Is it a person who represents the way I see the world? I can't predict the circumstances this leader will have to face, so I try to pick someone who is resilient.

On rigid designators, what does it mean for an object in one possible world to be the same object as an object in a different possible world? Is it simply a stipulation? — Michael

Rigid designation is just about capturing the way that we think, especially about alternate histories. Imagine I tell you that if Hitler had been accepted to art school, he wouldn't have become a dictator. If you insist that anyone who didn't become a dictator couldn't be Hitler, then you're going to be missing the point of my assertion. If you agree that there are all kinds of things Hitler could have become, then you're using rigid designation, which means you're using the name Hitler as a sort of nexus of possibility. The name picks out a certain person, but does not specify a complete set of properties.

You can, on the other hand, pick out a thing and identify it by a certain property or history. I'll discern your intention by the context, or if I'm uncertain, I'll ask you.

The question is especially relevant if we claim that the same object can have different properties in different possible worlds. Does it make sense to say that there's a possible world where I'm a black man named "Barack Obama" and who served as the 44th President of the United States? What does it mean for this person to be a possible version of me rather than a possible version of you or a possible version of the actual Barack Obama? — Michael

All of that is sorted out by a specific statement. For instance, if you say, "If I were Barack Obama, I would have told the Syrian rebels to calm down."

The study of political philosophy does not inherently require similarities to the current electoral system in your country. — panwei

Nevertheless, the problem you found is only associated with your own contrived system. The problem does not arise in electoral systems in general.

So, the question isn’t meaningful, it’s misguided. It treats certainty as something that needs to be justified, when in truth, certainty is what makes justification possible in the first place. — Sam26

I disagree that it's misguided. It's true that one tends to live with unquestioning certainty, but doubt about foundations also arises spontaneously at times, although perhaps not for everyone.

What you can say is the question has no point for you personally.

If you fail, you are eliminated. There is nothing to say. — panwei

What you're describing is not similar in fundamental ways to the electoral system in my country, so you've succeeded in showing the weakness of an artificial system of your own devising.

And that is very easy to understand, because "society" is an extremely difficult and vague concept, generally shaped and adapted toward the purpose of the discussion, in general usage — Metaphysician Undercover

One way to think of it in terms of needs. Think about the way we limit the freedom of individuals to protect society, as when we sanction theft. The needs of the individual thief threaten the well-being of society. On the other hand, if the well-being of society always trumps individual well-being, what's lost is creativity and innovation, which come from the dreams of individuals.

That's a way of seeing a spectrum with individuality as one pole and society as the other. Capitalism is heavily focused on the well-being of individuals, especially wrt freedom of the spirit. Capitalism says do whatever you want, there's no limit. There's theory that says no harm can come to society from individual greed, but though that theory is perennial, it's been shown over and over to be false.

We might imagine that collectivism would be the cure for all of mankind's ailments, but remembering that the spectrum is indivisible should be a warning about that.

:up:

To grasp a concept is being able to act in certain ways. — Banno

Suppose I know P, but I never act on it. How am I different from a person who knows P, but can't act on it?

This is an old philosophical problem with the concept of potential energy.

Understanding occurs. It's within the mystical parameters of consciousness which AI lacks yet seems to outperform us on.

I don't demand language for conceptual grasp. That strikes me as contrived to eliminate metaphysical messiness. — Hanover

Good answer.

Equating cognitive grasp of propositions to an experiential event necessarily eliminates any non-empirically based propositions — Hanover

I don't think we can say cognition and behavior are identical. That makes no sense.

What do you think is happening when a person grasps a concept?

Do you take the assessment of the truth value of a proposition as knowing-how knowledge, equivalent to juggling balls? Seems evaluating statements requires cognitive grasp of concepts. — Hanover

But aren't concepts an aspect of engaging the world? Even if I was beheaded and one last concept passed through my noggin, the meaning of that thought is inextricable from my better days of seeking and finding, trying and failing, etc.

When the people authorize the government by setting indicator weights, they are telling the government what to do and what requirements to meet. — panwei

But a strategy may succeed or fail for all sorts of reasons beyond the control of the government. A healthy government is flexible enough to deal with changing circumstances. A rigid government will crash against the rocks of fate.

Would you rather make mistakes and learn? Or be told what to do and learn nothing?

It’s interesting to consider how and why the social and cultural differences between men and women have developed over time. I suspect things were very different in the Paleolithic. — Michael

:up:

You're getting a little speculative there.

The Fed says we're heading into stagflation. :sad:

Wanting to wear a dress and high heels is specific to a certain culture. — Harry Hindu

True.

I've come to the same conclusion. Being trans does not change a person into the opposite sex. It's just a person behaving as if they're the opposite sex.

I suppose we have to determine whether or not the rate of regret is sufficiently high to warrant erring on the side of caution. — Michael

We now know that gender dysphoria can be transient. This quote is from Dr David Bell, the psychiatrist who worked with trans kids and eventually was instrumental in reforming the NHS approach youth transition:

It is vital to distinguish between gender dysphoria and transgender . The former refers to childhood disturbance in relation to the sexed body, the latter is an umbrella term and is easily used to foreclose exploration

Gender dysphoria is most commonly transient, as evidenced by the high proportion who desist, its socially contagious nature in teenage girl peer groups, and by the testimony of large numbers of detransitioners. Its common comorbidities suggest that it is probably one contemporary means of expressing adolescent distress, alongside depression, anxiety, self-harm and eating disorders, among young people with histories of childhood trauma and those on the autistic spectrum. For these children, a therapeutic approach which is neutral and exploratory is essential, locating their gender dysphoria in the context of their personal histories, and recognising that it may be a temporary expression of their wider distress . — Dr. David Bell

here

There are other reasons people detransition. In general, anyone with mental health issues should spend a lot of time in therapy before transitioning. For some, transitioning is basically running away from their problems.

Unfortunately for trans people, it is just as much constructed by themselves as it is by society at large, and those views seem to constantly conflict each other. — Tzeentch

And that's another reason transitioning should only be for mature adults. A fair number of detransitioned youths say they thought they could actually change to the opposite sex. They learned through experience post-transition, that you can't actually do that.

There's a popular subreddit called r/transpassing. People put their pictures up and ask for advice about how well they're passing, and what they mean by this is that they want strangers to think they're biological women (or biological men.) The notion that gender is a construct is true. That fact doesn't have much to do with what's actually going on.

This is one of the reasons liberals have been having a tough time in elections and it's just wrong. Trans men aren't women. They're men pretending to be women. — RogueAI

The UK Supreme Court overturned that Scottish law. Only biological women can fill the 50% quota for seats on the public boards.

I buy that gender and sex refer to two different things — tim wood

I do too. It's when the trans activist says biology should be ignored that the community balks.

The Scots would have apparently been willing to vote a dude into a woman's seat, but would they allow a woman into a man's? — tim wood

A transgender man could have taken a man's seat. Post UK Supreme Court ruling, those seats have to be divided by biology.

Yes. I think most Westerners would agree that women are defined biologically and men identifying as women are still men. It's a fiction that is tolerated because some people really believe they are in the wrong body and identifying as another gender helps alleviate their gender dysphoria, and there's no harm in going along with it, except in cases like women's prisons, sports, and things like this law you referenced about women getting 50% of the seats on boards. — RogueAI

I agree. I think the trans activists were thinking of a quasi-philosophical view of gender that didn't make it out to the population at large.

By community, do you mean online? Or the circles I move in? Or the people in my neighborhood? Or as an American? — RogueAI

In the West, would you say most people are thinking of biology when they say "woman?"

I am, I just don't have the hyper-literal thing. You seem to.

So only biological women can satisfy the 50% rule, right?
— frank

Yes. — Michael

Autism spectrum?

hose seats on the boards were reserved for women and men who identify as women are not women. — RogueAI

Do you see this as the most common view in your community?

So only biological women can satisfy the 50% rule, right?