Comments

  • The First Concept
    What do you mean "my law"?Alkis Piskas
    Cause-and-effect is a presupposition. I'm under the impression that a lot of science - not all - no longer thinks of cause-and-effect as an adequate description of how the world works. I think the replacement is to think in terms of fields - subject to correction.
    There's only pure logic here.Alkis Piskas
    Logic is fine. What does it have to do with the world?

    With the right presuppositions, I can prove anything logically. But that does not make it so. Trivially, if I assume P ^~P, then I can prove anything.
  • The First Concept
    In my case, the frame of reference was the "law if cause and effect".... Only that you didn't show why the first cause doesn't work and/or why it would be a paradoxAlkis Piskas
    If you only assume there is a first cause, then you've shown nothing. If your law is that every effect has a cause, then is every cause caused? If not, then what is different about a first cause (and why only one)? If yes then what causes the first cause? And, this is just an exercise in language; what does it have to do with the world?

    A first cause in the world, then, is speculation. Make it real.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Weren’t you the one saying you consider October 7th to be the beginning of this and that nothing prior matters?Mikie
    Nope, not the beginning, but a boundary that when crossed took all prior matters off the table until this one settled. As with a rabid dog or a medical emergency, you do what is necessary first. In the present case hostages and criminals.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    How is this language, and the poster who posts it, even tolerated on the forum?boethius
    7 October is a fact. The events of 7 October are a fact. The behaviour of Arab/Palestinian/Hamas on 7 Oct, murderous and bestial, also a fact. But there is one whole side of this thread that simply fails/refuses to address those facts. "Oh my yes!" they proclaim, "They did bad things, but those poor people, the awful Jews made them do it." And then they dismiss the Arab side of it, as has been done since at least Yasser Arafat in my recollection, and according to others, well before that.

    That leaves the Israeli/Jews essentially isolated. With some allies to be sure, but in many ways alone. So, who are we to question what the Israeli/Jew thinks best to do to keep alive when we simply do not live in his world. And how much better it would be if an international police force and court had presented itself to take over a criminal prosecution of the perpetrators of 7 Oct.?
  • The First Concept
    You think paradoxes logical things categorically apart from hands-on material things? You think paradoxes the products of narratives made incoherent due to missing pieces? Do you have any ready-to-hand examples?ucarr
    Creatures of logic yes, of the world, no. From missing pieces? I prefer to say from incomplete or inadequate descriptions. Case in point the Cantor paradox referenced above. The idea is that the set of all sets presumably contains its own power set as a subset, which implies that the cardinality of the subset is greater than the set itself. The resolution in this case is to correct the description to state that there can be no set of all sets because it leads to a paradox - or contradiction if you prefer. But you may protest that the universe itself is the set of all sets, but that would simply be a misunderstanding of the terms: the universe contains everything as distinct elements, no subsets, and thus cannot contain its own power set, which in this case would be meaningless. .
  • The First Concept
    You say language reaches its limit dealing with empirical experience. Can you elaborate on "dealing with"? For example, "Dealing with" means perceives and understands as if through a glass darkly.

    I've been forming the impression you see clearly two distinct experiences, one linguistic, the other hands-on material.
    ucarr

    Small point to start with. If your reference is to 1 Cor. 13; 12, then what you think is "through a glass darkly..," is actually, "through a mirror [now] as a riddle, but then [later] face to face." The word darkly is actually the word αἰνίγματι - ainigmati. And if you can see the word enigma in that, then you are exactly right, the usual translation being "riddle."

    It may be useful to note that all experience is empirical; that is, experienced. As such, subjective. Language then (of course) describes that experience, the language itself being neither the experience nor constitutive of the experience. You saw a pretty girl: neither your experience nor the description of it is the pretty girl. And she is beyond doubt pretty! But did you see her in infra-red or ultra-violet? Or the zillion or so neutrinos we now understand are passing through all of us all the time? Perception - experience - is what it is and nothing else. The world is something else.

    And there is speculation about matters not experienced, like first causes. A common form is to admit ignorance, and then immediately to pretend to knowledge. Kant covers all of this in the opening pages of his CPR.
  • The First Concept
    Are you steeped in linguistic philosophy?ucarr
    Not that I know of.
    Do you think language is inherently limited in its ability to characterize empirical experience truthfully and completely, or do you think language has innate potential to do this, but your endorsement of this characterization comes with the proviso that, up front, tremendous work over eons is necessary?ucarr
    I think language can at best only deal with empirical experience - what other experience would there be? The trouble comes about when empirical experience is taken for the world itself as it is in itself.
    Do you think paradox exists only within language? I ask bearing in mind superposition at the quantum scale.ucarr
    I'm of the mind that there are no paradoxes in the world, only in descriptions of the world. Of course when descriptions are incomplete, that leaves apparent paradoxes.
  • The First Concept
    Assuming one accepts the law of causalityAlkis Piskas
    And there you have it. Assuming you accept X, you get Con(X) (consequences of X). Except of course when you don't, then you can either reject X, or develop X', and maybe X'' or X'''.

    I am under the impression cause-and-effect is no longer accepted in much of physics as being the right account for how the world works. The point I suppose when looking at foundational concepts, is to question everything and assume nothing, so far as is possible. As it must be that some assumptions are made, it remains to make them explicit and to test them to see if they "work." The idea of a first cause or concept seems not to work (in this context) leading to paradox. That alone would suggest it be rejected.
  • The First Concept
    What empirical conclusion do you infer from the open-ended question of First Concept?Gnomon
    What do I infer? That lacking a lot of preliminary groundwork, mostly in establishing working definitions - though they be provisional and subject to change, pace Banno! - the question remains a non-sense question. That is, an attempt to make sense where there is no sense to be made.

    Temporality is implied in "first." Admittedly we're all temporal beings, and make sense of our world in terms of before, after, during. But what does modern physics say? For events space-like related which came first depends on who you ask - and notions of entanglement make that even more difficult to understand.

    And definitions - even understandings - partake of the nature of templates. But I believe it is Wittgenstein's observation that notwithstanding the efficacy of some templates, all templates are imposed and thus nothing of the world itself.

    (But) we exist in such a way that our templates appear to get the world's work done, with improvements over time - maybe it's evolutionary. And it is understandable that people would confuse their ideas about the world with being how the world actually works.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Too many posters on this thread are looking through glasses - lenses - encrusted with junk. The templates they see that they think are derived from the world are instead artifacts of defective optics. A little lens cleaner might help. The purposes of the Arabs/Palestinians/Hamas are simply based in their beliefs and ideologies. The Israelis/Jews, on the other hand, are and have been literally fighting for their lives. And while this has been the reality of generations/centuries/millennia, 7 Oct. 2023 simply made clear and explicit the bestiality of Arab intentions and practices. As such, until and unless adjudicated, there is no reason to consider anything ante-7 Oct. That is, the animal who brutalized and outraged your daughter before, during, and after murdering her may be just misunderstood, but his actions make that for the while irrelevant: his own statement being that he is no better than an animal, a vicious one.

    Hostages returned, criminals apprehended, justice served, then and only then back to pre-existing concerns.
  • The First Concept
    Along with any reason for doing philosophy.Gnomon
    Along with any reason for doing foolish philosophy. But one place a fool never sees a fool is in a mirror. I attest to this from my personal experience with mirrors.
  • The First Concept
    When you say "paradox in this case nature's way of saying "Dead-end. Turn about and go another way, "are you invoking the principle of non-contradiction?ucarr
    You're on the wrong road. Non-contradiction may guide how I think about what I think about, but it has nothing to do with the world.

    If you wish to understand first causes, then at the least you shall have to decide what context you're in. Language? Then it appears the language yields paradox. The world? No apparent paradox, but also no easy understanding.

    A trivial example: if I claim to be a faster runner than anyone, likely you will have a good understanding of what I mean, that I am fastest in my school, community, age-group, the world, whatever. But one thing I cannot be is faster than anyone, because I am an anyone, and that would mean I am faster than myself. So, while in the world I may be fast, the language fails as description. I'll opine here that all paradox is simply one sign of failure to understand - failure of language.
  • The First Concept
    I'm interested in learning how and why "A set of all sets" is not reasonable.ucarr
    This site was referenced in another thread.
    https://math24.net/paradoxes-set-theory.html
    It is too clear, simple, and brief for papaphrase. Take a look.
  • The First Concept
    The hazard, it seems to me, is that language itself is paradox-prone. Insofar as the paradox creates a mess and the mess needs cleaning up, the usual rule for cleaning up messes is to clean them up where they are and not where they are not. Cantor's paradox (about set theory) arises out of descriptive language thought entirely sound but found to be flawed, the remedy being to fix - qualify - the language. A set of all sets seems at first reasonable; it turns out not to be.

    The "paradox" of first beginnings is an applying of language to the world. The world being neither obliged to cooperate with nor obey language, paradox in this case nature's way of saying "Dead-end. Turn about and go another way." Which is good advice.

    A digression: it is a sign of intellectual maturity to both recognize good advice when and where met, and to follow it.

    But first beginnings is an itch just crying out to be scratched! Since this is about the world (and not about knowledge of the world) the right approach is to conform the language to the world, and not the world to language. In practical terms that means to define, define define, the defining being refining/qualifying the language about the world until it works.

    As "first cause," for example, implies temporality, that has to be understood as to what that is, and if it applies. For thee and me that's easy: the sandwich has to be made before it can be eaten. For the world itself, not so easy. And indeed it may be that temporal priority is an irrelevant dead-end!

    Dead ends can be fun to explore; but it is a mistake to suppose they're the way to anyplace in particular.
  • The First Concept
    It has seemed to me that the effort involves supposing that an(y) artifact of language (e.g., about so-called first causes) has anything to do with physical reality. Recognize that it doesn't and the problem of reconciling irreconcilables evaporates.
  • Grundlagenkrise and metaphysics of mathematics
    when mathematicians saw that Cantor's naïve set theory — an attempt to axiomatise mathematics — had contradictions,Lionino
    Can you sketch simply and briefly what such contradictions might be? Or point to where they are laid out?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    What is clear is Biden's cognitive declineboethius

    Is that notwithstanding any cognitive decline, he has got a lot done in spite of the best - or worst - efforts of Republicans. And if Republicans had condescended to contribute to government instead of trying to destroy it, likely much more could have been accomplished. It is my guess he has a good and dedicated team and they all work together. Republicans, on the other hand, have no good man or woman - "good Republican" being nearly an oxymoron - nor can they work together, but instead like sharks in a feeding frenzy feed on each other and even themselves.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    There's no excuse to collectively punish, through starvation, a civilian population for the crimes of a terrorist organisation in their midst, or indeed, their government.Benkei
    So tell us, then, why exactly are Hamas still holding the hostages?

    I do not know what any Israelis are thinking - I imagine they think all kinds of things. My thinking is that I want the hostages, and I want Hamas, with good reason for wanting both. And I will press until I get both, history having taught that all else fails. For at least immediate relief, the Palestinians need only turn over both. Simple as that. But they would rather die. Well, they do not get a prize for that; they only get the death they want - and to be sure, that they force.

    You, Benkei, seem to think the Israeli have a choice. I think they don't, Arab attitudes. policies, and actions having made it clear that they don't.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Your point being? Or is that your defense to continue to defend Israel? Starve 2,2 million to save a few hundred (who are probably starving as well!)? If so, my point stands, go fuck yourself.Benkei

    Well done, Benkei. You need to take a break.

    My point being that if you stick your thumb in someone's eye and he in turn takes you by the throat, it is only decent, if you're asking him to remove his hands from your throat, for you to take your thumb out of his eye. That the thumb is hostages makes everything very serious.

    Were Hamas just a gang in Gaza I'd mostly agree with you. But Hamas is not just a gang in Gaza. Imo Hamas and their kind are a cancer that should have been removed a very long time ago, but that has been allowed to metastasize to where it will kill its host. By "kill" I mean I expect Gaza soon enough to be a very different place than it is now or has been.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    go fuck yourself doubly for misrepresenting my position.Benkei
    How the hostages doin', Benkei?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    As if stupid people don't have a right to their life.Benkei
    You need a pause and reset. The issue is not stupid people. The issue is murderers whose "right to life," both quality and quantity, is compromised by their own actions.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    For so long as Hamas and the Ps hold hostages and protect Hamas, I consider Israeli actions to be simply a police action. But you tell me, what exactly do Hamas and the Ps think it is? What sense do the Ps make of all this - assuming Hamas has got and is getting exactly what they want.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    And October 7th doesn’t happen but for decades of Israeli terrorism.Mikie
    What Israeli terrorism? I've been aware of middle-east news since the mid-fifties and I know of no Israeli terrorism. But I know of lots and lots and lots and lots of murderous Palestinian terrorism.

    My understanding of recent history is that every time the Israelis have tried to be reasonable or to "lighten up," the Palestinians have stuck their thumb in the Israeli eye. In short, the Palestinians do not want peace, and when you're willing to fight to have war, then sooner or later you will it, reaping what you have sown. That is, they're in the position of people who wanted it, worked for it, earned it, and now they have it, so that they can wail, "Poor me!" to the gullible of the world. And if I am in Hamas, what is a few thousand or tens of thousands of my sucker countrymen to me: for so long as I can have my war let them live and die miserably, for that is nothing to me!

    I love the line of “Hamas could end this war immediately,” as if every innocent child Israel murders, deliberately and intentionally, is really the fault of Hamas. Like a law of nature.
    But saying something like the above is considered absurd.
    No wonder the world is condemning Israel. Easy to see through such stupid propaganda.
    Mikie
    Have you even read the news of what happened on 7 Oct.? What do you think happened on that date?

    And maybe so many Palestinian women and children would not be killed if those brave Arabs, those courageous Hamas, would stop hiding under skirts and behind children. As to ending the war, the Japanese and Germans and their allies in WWII chose unconditional surrender when war became to costly for their populations. I guess Hamas and the Palestinians are made of sterner stuff, and they don't need no stinkin' surrender. Every death since Oct. 7 on the heads of Hamas and the Palestinians and every one of them unnecessary!
  • How May the Idea of 'Rebellion' Be Considered, Politically and Philosophically?
    Time to nail down at least for the moment what is meant by "rebellion." "Rebel" and "rebellion" are nouns, but "rebellious" is an adjective. My small point here being that one can be rebellious without being either a rebel or engaged in a rebellion. Further, that in usual usage, the one who is rebellious is not usually supposed to be either a rebel or engaged in a rebellion. Rebelliousness, then, being merely a behaviour that while it may stretch does not nor is intended to rend the social fabric.

    Thus society while usually regarding rebelliousness with some tenderness, rightly holds rebellion a crime and rebels criminals - depending on what exactly they do. For US polity, this was settled for all time by both Daniel Webster in his "2d Reply to Hayne" speech of 1830 wherein he refuted the Southern argument of a so-called legal secession by showing that secession to be in fact an act of rebellion that had no legal protection. And by the US Civil War, 1861-65.

    So the ambiguity here is between rebelliousness and rebellion - two different things.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    This answers my question then. The population is expendable in the pursuit of Israel’s objectives.Punshhh
    A question: Are Hamas the Palestinians? Are the Palestinians Hamas? Imo they're different, but not entirely different. The Palestinians (therefore) have some culpability in 7 Oct., and certainly in their harboring Hamas and in keeping the hostages. Accessories at least, then, before and after the fact. So "expendable" not at all the right word.

    As well, there are the issues of crimes committed on Israeli territory, the perpetrators subject to Israeli law.
    You seem very one sided in these comments. What about the crimes committed by Israeli’s in the West Bank and Gaza? Or is it that carte blanche thing again?
    Punshhh
    What crimes? And what occupation?

    The crimes of the Israelis, near as I can tell, are both to exist and be so arrogant as to suppose they might defend themselves from being murdered. The Arabs/Hamas/PLO&etc/Palestinians, of course, having manufactured for themselves their racist hatreds, are guilty of no crimes, theirs being a religious imperative to murder Jews whomever, wherever and whenever they can. And while Netanyahu may not be himself a nice guy, still I find no fault with his aggression for so long as the hostages are held and Hamas leadership is untouched. How do you think Golda Meir would have reacted to 7 Ocr.?
    .
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    What about the reverse, until Israel stops occupying Palestinian territories, withdraw from Gaza and rebuild all the buildings they've knocked down and paid compensation to the families of all the dead, isn't that carte blanche for Hamas to hang on to the hostages?bert1

    Well, that's a proposal; what do you propose Hamas and the Palestinians do for their part? After all, none of this horror happens but for Hamas's attack on 7 Oct.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Personally I would want the hostages to be returned unharmed along with the Palestinian people being left unharmed.Punshhh

    That would be a start. But until the hostages are released/accounted for, their being kept seems to me a carte blanche for the Israelis and their IDF.

    As well, there are the issues of crimes committed on Israeli territory, the perpetrators subject to Israeli law.

    It all seems too simple: release the hostages, surrender criminals, try to move on to peace. Who could object to that, and why?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    There is an easy solution here. Israel should provide refugee camps for Palestinian refugees in Israel.Punshhh

    Ambiguity. They should provide in Israel refugee camps? Or they should provide refugee camps for refugees that are themselves in Israel?

    But perhaps more significant is that you seem to feel that the Israelis should do something - and there may be lots of reasons why they "should." But the Arab neighbors appear to be completely unwilling to touch the Palestinians with even the proverbial ten-foot pole. Why do you think the Israelis "should" do something and not the Arab neighbors; and by the way, is there anything you think the Palestinians or more to the point Hamas should do?

    And I think you should make unequivocally clear your own view on the hostages. Do you agree with me that the hostages must be the first order of business? Or if not, then what?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    So unless the hostages are returned, the whole population of Gaza is expendable?Punshhh
    "Expendable" is maybe not the right word, certainly - obviously - at risk.

    "Expendable" seems to me to place power and responsibility in the wrong place, in the wrong people: the Israelis. As if the Palestinians and Hamas themselves had no choice. But imo opinion they do have choices and have made choices, and are responsible for consequences. And even now they have control - over the hostages. I have answered, now you answer: why do you think Hamas is keeping the hostages? What purpose does that serve?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Simple question, how many Palestinian deaths are too many?
    At what point do the IDF say we’ve gone to far and stop?
    Punshhh
    One is too many. That limit being blown up on 7 Oct., let us hear no more of it.

    To my way of thinking, all is or should be prioritized. Hostages first. Period. And perhaps you're green enough to believe the Israelis are in control, but I submit that Hamas is. Evidence? The hostages. But at least Hamas are keeping it simple for the moment; they have reduced their control to one switch, the hostages, and to keep that control they are willing to see destroyed the lives of the Palestinians.

    Maybe Hamas believes that in some long game all will ultimately be better for them. Perhaps they dream that there will be some kind of Arab Marshall Plan to rebuild the destroyed buildings and infrastructure. But who replaces the dead, and why, exactly, did they die?

    I think the truth is that the Palestinians chose, ended up with, a vicious government that did not and does not care even a little bit for the Palestinian people. With every Hamas the IDF kills, the Israelis are doing the Palestinians a favour, but of course the Palestinians themselves are paying the price of allowing Hamas and its predecessors and their ideologies to become ascendant in the first place.

    If you think the Israelis have a choice, what choice is it that you think that they have?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    11 March 2024. I think, subject to correction, that Hamas still holds more than one hundred Israeli hostages. If I'm Netanyahu or any other Israeli I keep it simple: no relief until and unless all hostages released/accounted for. And if they're murdered, then everything is off the table. Meanwhile I go after Hamas as hard as I can wherever found, and I make it clear to Palestinians that they do not have to die, but they will if they choose to be in the line of fire. Hostages first. If not that then nothing else makes sense.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    10/7... Hamas was just trying to open the gates to hell and they did it.

    Because of the intifadas Israel established these checkpoints....

    I think what we're seeing here is the 3rd intifada and the gloves have come off.

    Israel has given ceasefire offers to Hamas but Hamas rejects it.... Culture of life versus culture of death.
    BitconnectCarlos
    :100:

    And where are the hostages?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    (Oh no wait it’s the Palestinians that are terrorists…yada yada yada.)Mikie
    To my way of thinking, on 7 Oct. Hamas rendered history irrelevant. The same way Yassar Arafat and the PLO did, and Black September, and their predecessors. The Jew's crime is existing, and for that they are condemned, apparently. To my way of thinking the Jews/Israelis are cornered into acting in self-defense from necessity. But they compound their crime by not dying nor consenting to be annihilated.

    Which absolves, apparently, Palestinians and their terrorist gov't of the moment, and the neighbors, of all, repeat all, responsibility. And again to my way of thinking the Israelis are justified by necessity for any action they take for so long as the hostages are an issue. They being safe and returned, then maybe some progress toward peace possible. But certainly not on the same model as before: Hamas blew that up!
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    How about the hostages, Mikie, you down with them being murdered, assuming they're still alive at the moment?
    — tim wood

    That’s up to Israel.
    Mikie

    Really? Exactly how do you figure that? Try making sense, or don't bother answering.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    The terrorists should be eliminated. We can all agree. So let’s start with the ones who kill, injure, and starve the most people— in that case, the Israeli government. Maybe kill 10 or 20 thousand Israeli children as well, in pursuit of such ends. I’m sure the forum chickenhawks would be fine with this, given how consistent they are.Mikie

    Hey Mikie, why doesn't Hamas stop the fighting? I think they could do it. Do you think they could do it? It might have been nice if they didn't start the fighting, but that's just a fait accompli.

    Of course it might involve them changing some of their fundamental beliefs, about the Jews being guilty of existing, punishment being annihilation. So while at the moment the Israelis are doing some things that look pretty ugly, I gotta figure Hamas wants it; wanted it, worked very hard for it, sacrificing generations of Palestinians - worked for it, earned it, and now they have it, and they still want it. How about the hostages, Mikie, you down with them being murdered, assuming they're still alive at the moment?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    One question: are the hostages returned?
  • The whole is limitless
    Or more simply the surface of a sphere. Without limit or boundary. certainly in the very ordinary sense, finite.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Imo the Israeli attack on Gaza is justified only by Hamas's attack on Oct. 7 and the hostages, but altogether and entirely justified thereby. The fellow in the video above has made a number of videos, all interesting and thought provoking (again imo). His message seems to be that if taking a critical look at the middle east, it is both necessary and wise to look at it "large-scale." For without such a view, one fails of understanding, of what has happened, is happening, and why; and without right perspective, nothing is the right "shape." And I think the fellow is sufficiently credible to allow what he says to have a good deal of weight.