I greatly value my philosophy degree. It was well worth it. An education makes you a better person.

This was the only thing I gained from uni. My philosophy degree is pretty much worthless. — Michael

It allowed you to land a job here as a moderator, so there's that.

Not true. It has been more than suggested by the big orange among others on several occasions. — Baden

Yeah, well, when I said "no one," I think it's clear I didn't mean it literally, as there's always that guy who'll say most anything. I also don't take Trump literally, as if he means to say that he wants to amend the Constitution to allow the prohibition of certain speech and certain speech acts and then to pass legislation that results in banishment of the offenders. He's speaking in a moralistic sense (to the extent one can decipher what his actual intent is) where he means one is not deserving the privilege of living in this great nation if they're not going to afford it the proper respect, damn it.

I sort of agree with him in a 3rd or 4th beer sort of way, but upon more sober reflection, I do see certain difficulties in decreeing such rules and even more in carrying out the punishment, especially in light of the new wall that might make ejection more difficult.

That's what separates you from those countries where what is done to people who don't bow before the flag is exactly what the unAmerican critics of Kaepernick would like done to him. — Baden

No one is suggesting his right to free speech should be curtailed.

I presume they ran it through some focus groups and decided they needed him and his fellow travelers more than the opposition. Hardly surprising a youth-oriented company would take the edgier route anyhow. The flag will continue to symbolise what people believe it symbolises, no more and no less. K's chances of winning the wider argument on it are roughly zero. And Nike I expect already have the damage-limitation PR ready for whatever Fox News etc. throw at them (which in any case will probably be only to their advantage—"Help, we're being attacked by some old white guys on media most of our customers hate, what ever shall we do?"). — Baden

You give far too much credit to marketing departments in knowing what they're doing. Whether this plan will ultimately be successful, I don't know. I worked for corporate America long enough to know how much politics, ego, and arrogance play into decisions.

Nike are legally obliged to maximize profits for their shareholders. If anyone believes anything matters to them that doesn't ultimately serve that goal then they don't understand how business works. Ergo, criticizing them for having the "wrong" attitude re the flag is silly. Their obligation is to take whatever attitude is more profitable. — Baden

And part of the Darwinian approach is to deal with the fall out and hope their survival is increased by this move. Just like if another business decided to take a homophobic stance (for example) in the hopes it would increase its sales, it should expect boycotts and whatever else, and I seriously doubt it would reduce the clamoring to tell the objectors that they should quiet down because the sales tactic is working and such objections are therefore silly..

None of you are Nike's target audience so it's really funny that you think they should give a shit what you think — Maw

The Nike marketing execs aren't omniscient, and so it's reasonable to question whether their decision to embrace one sector of the shoe buying public while turning their back to another part will ultimately be successful.

Words and symbols have meaning, and the dictionaries often categorize the meanings in terms of priority of use. The first meanings of standing for the National Anthem and the wearing of a flag (current or historic) is a show of patriotism. The 800th meaning might be that they show a lack of compassion for African American youth at the hands of law enforcement or that they show underlying racist attitudes.

It is therefore reasonable for someone who subscribes to the primary definition of these acts to interpret an objection to them as being unpatriotic. That is, I have a more reasonable basis, based upon my understanding of the terms and symbols, to say that objecting to the Betsy Ross flag is unAmerican than does Kaepernik have in saying it a is showing of civil rights activism.

And all of this is a bit more obvious than we're willing to admit. It is no coincidence that Kaepernik only finds racism in patriotic acts. His aim is to irritate his political opponents, and so he is able to sniff out racism only in acts that those to the right of him find sacred. It's all politics for some purpose I can't exactly follow because I was totally aboard the train that leads to racial harmony and greater justice already, but I'm totally not aboard whatever train he's conducting.

It just seems like he's fagging away unnecessarily. I'm, of course, using the 800th meaning of that term, which I now insist is its primary use.

Whether this applies or not, I don't know, but Anglo law nations adhere to interpretation by precedent, using prior cases as analogies to current cases. So if you're trying to determine what the law is to your situation, you look to how courts have ruled in the past to similar cases. The variations among fact patterns allow for significant argument and debate, so it is often unclear how a court will rule using the precedent and it leaves to the ingenuity of the lawyer to explain why the prior cases are or are not analogous . What that means is that the analogies do not necessitate certain results, but they allow for a certain amount of ambiguity and creativity.

What moved? — Banno

How can anything occur without movement?

Mary Midgley has died at the ripe age of 99. She was a staunch critic of 'scientism' not from the perspective of religion but of humanism (and in that respect, somewhat similar in her views to her younger compatriot Raymond Tallis.) Her Guardian profile page is here. — Wayfarer

If she was so smart she wouldn't have died.

Nothing that I know of, other than personal renderings or hear say, has ever been produced or provide to show the existence of a supernatural realm or entities. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Wouldn't physical evidence of the supernatural prove it's physical and therefore natural?

That would be true if there were only two options: amateur philosophers and academics. Maybe there are other choices, like doctors.

I believe you're handling this disassociative episode in the appropriate way by presenting it for general consideration by a bunch of amateur philosophers.

We were taking about Birmingham, Alabama weren't we?

I've been to Birmingham many times. Not much to do there. It's a big step down from Atlanta.

But not a limit on control over immigration from non-EU countries, and yet there's more immigration from non-EU countries, so if immigration is a problem then we can cut it by up to two-thirds without having to leave the EU by limiting immigration from non-EU countries. — Michael

Sure, but the non-EU immigrates are the immigrants Britain has chosen to allow in but the EU immigrants are the ones foisted upon them. They want to choose who they let in and who they don't.

Whereas if your reason for being in favour of Brexit is that you believe that the democratically-elected Parliament of the UK should be autonomous then it would be inconsistent to then favour shared-rule with Brussels over an autonomous democratically-elected Parliament with Corbyn as Prime Minister. — Michael

I think the Corbyn objectors are similar to your objections to Trump, which is that they think Corbyn will damage something particularly central to their ideology that is greater than their desire for an autonomous Britain. Just like you'd rather have Brexit if it meant Trump coming in and doing significant damage to the NHS, I think the Corbyn objectors would rather have Brussels controlling certain aspects of the British economy than to Corbyn doing the various damage they expect he will.

Which makes me wonder what they think Corbyn will do to the UK if they're willing to damage the economy and break up the union to ensure Brexit but not willing to let Corbyn be Prime Minister to ensure Brexit. — Michael

He's a socialist. That might make me giving up some autonomy to avoid that. In the US, I'd likely accept a socialist President over control by Brussels because a socialist president would just result in gridlock and an American socialist is equivalent to a European conservative.

So they want autonomy even if it means breaking up the union and damaging the economy? But they don't want autonomy if it means a Corbyn-led government?

Just seems like bullshit to me. — Michael

They must think Corbyn is the boogey man.

Let me take a poll of you:

Would you rather: (A) A Trump led Britain with no Brexit, (B) a Corbyn led government with Brexit?

According to this, in 2018 there were almost 350,000 immigrants from non-EU countries and just over 200,000 immigrants from EU countries. If the government wanted to it could cut immigration by almost two-thirds without even leaving the EU. — Michael

I don't know enough about it, but I'm assuming there are limitations to how much Britain can limit emigration from EU countries into Britain and that imposes upon Britain self-rule.

You're probably joking, but breaking up the UK and damaging the economy isn't going to make Britain great. So honestly what's the real reason those Conservative voters want Brexit so bad? Seems like they want to make Britain worse off and I wonder why (and also why whatever reasons they have don't hold up in the face of a Corbyn government — Michael

They don't want Britain to be worse off. That's not their motivation. They want autonomy. It's sort of like how I'd vote that you not have the right to come in my yard to cut my lawn, trim my bushes, and make sure my house looks in order all on your dime. It's my house damn it.

Though the biggest takeaway is really that Conservatives are willing to break apart the UK, damage the economy, and destroy their party just to secure Brexit. — Michael

No they're not. They're making Britain great again. MBGA.

The thing is, we already have immigration regulation for EU citizens. We can kick people out after 3 months if they can't prove they're working, seeking work, or self-sufficient. The government just isn't doing that. — Michael

Sure, it's hard to enforce and everyone makes arguments that you're just kicking people out because they're Mexican, Polish or whatever the migrant worker country of origination is. The only solution then becomes to build a wall, either literally, or by making your island more of an island, fully divorced from the EU.

That's sort of the scenario in the US, but it goes both ways. That is, I think most conservatives in the US would have rather seen almost anything than Hillary being elected. The same holds true for liberals. I think they'd have agreed to scrap almost any liberal policy than to have Trump as president.

Attorneys are not permitted to consider that American law is sometimes wrong. So that's a second reason they don't teach it. — ernestm

I can consider that a law is immoral (I am an attorney), and I was taught what natural law is. It's not a secret. It's just a vague notion of what rights attach to people for being people.

From another country's perspective, however, the USA is required to uphold the natural law it used as justification to revolt against the British, or it loses the authority to rule. — ernestm

I think it'd be hypocritical for the US to object to another oppressed people's decision to revolt against their oppressive government if their bases were the same as itemized in the Declaration, but that's as far as it would go. I don't know there's a duty not to be hypocritical tough, nor does hypocrisy affect a nation's ability to rule.

there is a difference between constitutional rights and natural rights.

The declaration of independence states that the british violated natural rights, and therefore no longer had authority to rule. The justification has nothing to do with constitutional rights. — ernestm

That's a good summary of what I said.

As to your prior comment that the US cannot justify immigration standards, my comment remains that such are not inconsistent with American law and natural law has never been used as an impediment for any American policy decision.

This is an easy question. All we have to do if find a single thing that it's wrong to joke about and then we've proven that there are some things it's wrong to joke about.

So, here goes: it would be wrong to joke about the likely dryness of your grandmother's vagina as the priest was standing over her suffering, contorted and dying body reading her her last rites, as her daughter held her hand and cried.

You shouldn't chuckle and say: "I bet when she finally dies and they roll her over, there'll be a puff of dust from her hoo-haa."

It'd be wrong, even if correct.

Anyone else have one?

My two cents worth is that if the world were a Utopia and composed only of Hanovers, no soccer player would get paid because there'd be no demand.

There'd be some other very disturbing demand surges though.

The wording is interesting, I think: "Suddenly I had to think of him."(my italics). There is no choice or volition or logical space of any sort between seeing the picture and seeing N. — Banno

This isn't philosophy, but just incorrect empirical generalization. I can in fact see a picture of N and be completely at a loss that it's N, but maybe figure it out that it's N from his hat or his polka dotted tie.

It's like you're trying to convince yourself that you know it's N in an instantaneous unprocessed way, like the mind just knows without thought. Granted the mind arrives at conclusions quickly, but that's not because it's not processing justifications, it's just because it moves quickly.

My reading of that passage is that "phenomenologically painful" means "experientially painful" and both adverbs are superfluous because all pain is experiential, unlike a rock, which has an existence outside of experience and it might make sense to distinguish a phenomenally existent rock and an actual rock.

That is, remove the word "phenomenologically" from the sentence and the sentence will mean the same thing.

Yes, and one can know "2 + 2 = 4", and that would all entail knowing how to say and write these things but not what the scribbles and sounds actually mean. Knowing how to imitate language use is not the same as knowing what the words mean, or what the words refer to that aren't words themselves. That would require an experience of using the words at the same moment of experiencing the sensory data that they refer to, such as hearing the word, "red" and seeing the color red at the same moment. In that instance, you would know what the word, "red" meant, not just how to form the word with your mouth. — Harry Hindu

And there's nothing controversial about any of this, but I'm still left with so what? I understand that we logically arrive at conclusions and that logic forms a part of our justification for our knowledge.

I understand that I justify my conclusion that 2+2=4 based upon how I've designated my logical operators to work and that I justify that N is the guy in the picture based upon my past recollections of N.

Are we now just pointing out the difference between rationalism and empiricism and asking if there is truly a priori knowledge or whether all knowledge has its roots in experience? Is that what the OP is about? If so, I didn't realize it was that basic.

Knowing that this is a picture of N. is different to knowing that water freezes at zero degrees. — Banno

I suspect that we could differentiate the various ways one acquires knowledge, but as a general matter it all arises from some sort of sensory input. There are legalistic distinctions that follow basic epistemological standards. Perhaps you know the picture is of N because you were told that and perhaps you know that water freezes at zero degrees because you were told it. In both cases, it would be based upon what you heard said (hearsay). Or, both could be based upon direct knowledge, where you actually witnessed N in person and then by picture or you witnessed the mercury fall to zero and then the water freeze.

What is your justification in each? In the hearsay examples, it's your belief in the veracity of the statements. In the direct knowledge examples, it's your belief in the veracity of what you saw.

I've now spent enough years sorting through these types of threads you post that I believe I've earned the right to the great reveal as to what's at stake in these discussions. If you accept my position that the justification for N is as I've stated it is and that it is not circular, what wheel falls off of Wittgenstein's little red wagon?

I agree, but why did you question the JTB definition if you now adopt it?

This claim carries all the paraphernalia around the guess that mind involves unconscious algorithmic processing.

I'm not buying that, and hence I am not buying your point here. — Banno

Sometimes it's conscious processing, so it's not a guess.

That's right; but one approach will be to treat the hypothetical as part of a reductio. If it is the case that we agree he knows the picture is of N., and yet that this knowledge is unjustified, then so much for justified true belief. — Banno

The reductio is to ask not how I know Mr. N is Mr. N, but it's how you recognize anything, including the words on this page. How do you know what I mean by "Mr. N" if not those letters look a certain way?

Does being justified require being argued for, or does it require being well-grounded by/within personal experience regardless of whether or not the thinking/believing creature is capable of offering subsequent explanation? — creativesoul

There is no distinction here. We argue by referencing our empirically gained knowledge. I know the butler did it because I either saw him do it or I saw other evidence implicating him.

I’ not inclined to refer to ‘knowledge’ as ‘justified true belief’ — I like sushi

Then you're not addressing the hypothetical:

If to know is to hold a justified true belief... — Banno

And so you do not see that as circular? — Banno

No, it's not circular. A computer can identify a picture of you as Banno. It must be matching various criteria against something in its database. That's what I'm doing at some level.

Is it circular to say I know that's not a cup because it looks like a cat?

That it looked like him would be my justification.

Is a mailman religious? — Shamshir

Mr. McFeely never really revealed his religious affiliation that I'm aware of.

A universal feature of most religions is an appeal to authority. You left that all important fact out from your analysis. — Wallows

I'd argue that there are no essences to anything, including everything from cups to religion. For example, we can construct a religion of pure spirituality, where there is no authority figure, just sort of where we all live in harmony with nature or some such shit.