What then does philosophy offer? — DingoJones

Ways of clarifying questions to which there is going to be no indisputable answer. Ways of weighing up the costs and benefits of coming out firmly on one side or another. Ways of understanding the confusion that underlies some questions before rushing into giving answers.

A philosopher who fights confidently and consistently for an untenable position is also doing a service by showing up the epistemic cost of a theory. This is part of what Austin meant in paying tribute to the philosopher who makes a "first-water, ground-floor mistake".

There are plenty of places to go for undisputed answers to difficult questions. E.g. sign up for Twitter and block everything you disagree with. Job done.

I think the point (whimsy aside) is to distinguish the original trolley problem, where deaths are caused incidentally to saving lives, from a situation in which a death is caused deliberately in order to save lives. I flip the switch on the trolley, knowing that people will die (though more will be saved). Is this morally different from pushing a man over a bridge and killing him deliberately in order that more lives will be saved? One defence of abortion grants that the fetus is a human being with full rights but that in order to save a woman's life the death of the fetus is incidental, because (as it happens) the woman's life cannot be saved without sacrificing the fetus. An objection to this defence is that the distinction between killing the fetus incidentally and killing it deliberately is a distinction without a moral difference. It's a curious cartoon of a fat man on a bridge but it is, as the saying goes, a thing.

Sure. My query was whether freedom from sexual interference can be described as 'one that has worked'. To believe that think I would have to stop listening to anything that any woman says.

An obscure reason to keep your weight down, if you need it, is that if you stay slim then you will be safe on bridges where some disaster is happening below that might be prevented by a fat person being pitched over the edge by a philosopher who unluckily and perhaps mistakenly holds the view that it's the right thing to do.

Women want freedom from sexual interference, that's one that has worked.... — introbert

Last I heard, the interference continues worldwide - from harrassment in the street to state-sanctioned rape and murder.

"Post-modernism - worth a mention or ignore completely?" Ignore.

"Any philosopher living in the last seventy years - name-check or not bothered?" Nah.

Still, interesting for what it's worth.

I don't think parents believe they are responsible for the things they are causing — Andrew4Handel

Scary. Either they think they are responsible for things they haven't caused or they think they aren't responsible for anything at all. Glad I'm not a parent.

E-Prime (short for English-Prime or English Prime, sometimes denoted É or E′) is.... — Art48

Is what? Wait for it...

....a version of the English language that excludes all forms of the verb to be — Art48

Nice punchline. N-Prime is what we call the version that excludes all proper names. Your turn.

It seems a reasonable challenge to any philosophical claim that appeals to intuition about concepts. Whose intuition? And how to decide between conflicting intuitions?

One problem is that in experiments the number of variables needs to be limited. This may constrain an experiment in ways that make it less than useful. Knobe's is an example. The CEO's acted intentionally or unintentionally. Those were the options offered. But in describing these situations there are many other concepts people might invoke. Were the CEOs' various actions - deliberate, incidental, accidental, done on purpose, reckless, meant to be done, done with such and such an aim, for example? There are subtle differences between all these concepts. My answer might be: "He knew he was going to harm the environment but that wasn't his aim - I would say it was done recklessly, because he didn't care whether or not he harmed the environment - I would say the harm was incidental to his purpose, but it definitely wasn't an accident because he knew it would happen - so I wouldn't say it was intentional or unintentional, those ideas don't really capture the nature of what he did - I would say, well, just what I said." Then how would my answer be categorised in the results? The experiment may show merely that if you give people a range of options in a questionnaire then those will tend to be the options between which they choose. It shows that many people are compliant when completing questionnaires that they have volunteered to complete. That is in itself an interesting finding but it tells us little about intuitions.

You mean, you have no interest at all in the epistemic conditions that make knowledge of the world possible....here, in a philosophy forum — Constance

No. I probably think about Kant more than I ought. I mean that, like you, similar questions keep me awake at night. You can't do philosophy without a good night's sleep. So arithmetic it is. Nighty night!

Perhaps for the same reason that when you read this post you are not merely inspecting marks on a screen. Your uncle means something to you. Hopefully more than this post.

But is this 'meaning something' anything but a bunch of electrical impulses in your own neurons?

Ach, you'll never be satisfied. It's not just you. Personally I do complicated mental arithmetic and eventually drop off.

"For creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration but not by its own" Roman's 8 — Gregory

Whoa, we haven't got that far. So far "God created the heavens and the earth" is under discussion because it is doubted whether the earth God is said to have created is this earth or some other earth. The authors should perhaps have been clearer about what they meant when they wrote "the earth". It's a common fault, if it is a fault.

"Either all cognition is cognition of appearance, in which case there can be no cognition of noumena, or there can be cognition of the noumenon, in which case cognition is not essentially cognition of appearance" — KantDane21

In the spirit of Aristotle. Either all men are wise, in which case, of necessity there are no foolish men; or it is possible that there are foolish men, in which case it is not necessary that if one is a man then one is wise.

It implies an additional premiss. 'It is not possible that a man is both foolish and wise.' Or, translating back, 'nothing can be both appearance and noumenon.'

But yes, mutual exclusivity of P and Q is needed — bongo fury

That's the implied premiss.

It has no philosophical or scriptural justification. — Bartricks

It's a matter of faith, which is different from the kind of justification that we would give for the existence of a statute, for example. I can look up statutes in the statute book and the parliamentary records. Matters of faith are matters about which we say 'Well, that seems right to me and I can't prove it but I trust it and I'm going to proceed as if it's the case even without being able to produce the evidence.' God created the heavens and the earth. I understand your point that it's not in scripture - or if it is in there somewhere, it's perhaps tucked away where one might not expect it. But in scripture or not it's a matter of faith.

I will forever combat it. — universeness

Very creditable. But if it ever takes over then it will soon die out. Because we will soon die out. And there's no replacement plan aside from more babies. It's a self-limiting theory.

I am interested in whether there is any good philosophical reason for them to do so. — Bartricks

I think this sort of belief is said to be a matter of faith because there are no justifying reasons of the kind that would satisfy in other circumstances. For example, Michaelangelo made the statue David. The justifying reasons for believing this lie in a train of documents, witness accounts, etc together with some plausible dismissals of implausible alternative theories. Contrast: God made the world. We are not committed to believing this on pain of being inconsistent with other beliefs. It certainly seems to be the case. It makes perfect sense. It's the kind of thing God might do. Knowing the character of God as much as we can, it's in character. But there's no audit trail. It's a matter of faith.

:ok: Eighty three and three quarters! One, thirty eight, minus twenty six? Zero.

never know the taste of Scottish whisky — javi2541997

Number Ten the Brave. Bonnie Number Ten. Flower of Number Ten. Would the Hebrides get their own number? Not sure they'd be happy with Number Ten Point One.

The People's Republic of Europe. How happy we might be with a Government of by and for the people. And the enemies of the people might be shown the error of their ways. Already I might feel like setting up a re-education centre. But something comes up and crushes that feeling. Is it capitalist brain-washing?

I guess a lot of people will have issues to discuss with God when the time comes. If they can get a word in edgeways. :flower:

They are fair questions. Is God not unjust in allowing millions to suffer? Were my parents not wrong to bring me into this vale of tears? Even if I can get my parents off the hook it may not absolve God. And even if God can get in the clear my parents may still be culpable. They seem to be separate cases. At any rate it distracts attention from any blame that I might carry for making the world a worse place or distressing my parents.

What does it mean to know my action in an unfiltered way? If I serve up chicken and in serving up chicken I unknowingly serve up salmonella, then I know my action of serving up chicken and I do not know my action of serving up salmonella. There is an action of my own that I know and an action of my own that I do not know. They may or may not be the same action. If they are different actions then they are not different in the same way as the action of serving up the chicken is different from the action of pouring the wine. What is filtering and where does it fit into that account of actions of my own which I know or do not know?

The OP argument may be invalid on account of premiss two (and perhaps others) not having a clear or coherent meaning.

you didn't follow the assignment. — schopenhauer1

Because it is poorly designed to test intuitions about different kinds of virtue or failing. It is similar to this.
Cars can be safe. Cars can be fast. Which do you want - a safe car or a fast car? "Well, I'll have a safe car" - oh, ho, so you don't care about going at walking pace all the time? "Then I'll have a fast car" - what, and kill children just to get somewhere on time? You must pick one. But of course it is not the case that we must pick one kind of virtue. We only have to pick one car, which will have various good and bad points.

You have to pick one. — schopenhauer1

Both are already here with us in the world and we are all to some extent ineffectual and productive, pleasant and nasty. Perhaps I work hard enough already and should put more effort into being pleasant as well. It's a big ask, but I might have a go at both rather than just picking one. You're setting the bar too low.

As Bob is such a nice guy he can presumably see that he's getting on his colleagues' wick by failing at work and he will out of kindness seek another job that requires being nice to people whilst producing nothing at all. The modern Western economy is full of such opportunities for a charming useless layabout like Bob. Larry, on the other hand, should slow down and try to be less productive or he may excite the envy of the many Bobs around him.

Too easy. — schopenhauer1

On the contrary, comparing one kind of virtue and failing with another is extremely difficult and subtle, especially when both kinds are present to some degree in all of us.

I've heard of a teacher providing a shopping list as an example of a poem, encouraging analysis. — Dawnstorm

Have you seen the meme - Shakespeare Quote of the Day: "An SSL error has occurred and a secure connection to the server cannot be made."

Is a perfect correlation between X and Y ever sufficient to demonstrate causation? — Karlen Karapetyan

No: at least, not of X by Y; nor of Y by X. X and Y might each be caused by Z. If an animal has a heart then it has a liver and if an animal has a liver then it has a heart. But the liver is not caused by the heart and the heart is not caused by the liver.

I started out using Kindle to look up references and foreign phrases, but I quit after a couple of stanzas. — T Clark

Eliot provided his own notes, which are not always published in full text online versions but here they are:

https://wasteland.windingway.org/endnotes

Unfortunately the notes themselves assume a knowledge of Italian, German and Latin. So for what it's worth.

No, it's a jingly kind of pop. — Amity

Back to the OP, listen out for 'That Shakespearherian rag' in The Wasteland. It's so elegant. So intelligent. Not the Bangles, but Cole Porter, for example.

loose conversational speech into strict traditional verse form — Cuthbert

And for the scene in the pub. "Hurry up, please, it's time."

Rishi is one of us. But which us is he one of?

Liz Truss — Michael

Who?

Where are you finding them? The short form suits me well :flower:

So, a simple couplet. Clever; reflecting title and theme.
What do you think/feel when you read it? — Amity

Wendy Cope suffered in the early days of the internet (perhaps still does) from having invented meme verse before memes. Her poems went everywhere and she got nothing. She fought for copyright but I think it was a losing battle. Her book "Making Cocoa for Kingsley Amis" is a treasure. Her selection of "Funny Poems" is beautiful. "Two cures for love" is about romantic obsession. We can either preserve our fantasies at a distance and feel deprived or turn them into reality and feel equally or even more deprived. It is a satirical poem: the target is not the inadequacy of men or of lovers but the emptiness of fantasy. In two lines. She is great at putting loose conversational speech into strict traditional verse form - here's another one, rules mentioned again, rules of prosody:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1031860-nine-line-triolet-here-s-a-fine-mess-we-got-ourselves-into

This Be The Verse

By Philip Larkin — Tom Storm

Footnote: My friend would say to her baby daughter, who objected sometimes to being put to bed, as babies do, "They tuck you up, your mum and dad, and they mean to, yes they do."

Poetry: How to read a poem - University of York — Amity

And my little tribute:

Two ways to read a poem

1. Study hard and analyze it.
2. The easy way: learn it by heart and let it live there.

Wendy Cope, I've actually heard of but can't recall a single poem?! — Amity

Then perhaps you will enjoy:

Two Cures for Love

1. Don’t see him. Don’t phone or write a letter.
2. The easy way: get to know him better. — Wendy Cope

And many more....

"Prosody matters enormously to the meaning of a poem."
— Srap Tasmaner

How does that apply to this poem in particular? — T Clark

No, it's a jingly kind of pop. — Amity

The title and the first two lines of each stanza set us up for feeling slow and reflective. The last four lines run in the rhythm and rhyme of a limerick (minus the first line). The serene mood is undermined to make it, well, funny. If we had been asked to guess the author I would have said Wendy Cope.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/browse?contentId=49670

@Olivier5

The objective of “ever closer union” was retained in the Preamble to the 1992 Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty):
Resolve to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. — https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7230/

It just phraseology. — Olivier5

Well, perhaps it's just sweet words. But not to many people. 'Ever closer union' means that if you're not already as close as you can get, then you can get closer. And for States that means being the same State. Under what circumstances do two different things become one thing? Can things become ever more similar without becoming the same thing? This is the metaphysics of Brexit.

The real policy is more something like: "When it's really important, we can come together. Or not." — Olivier5

We start with shared vision and no more war and common purpose. Now it's 'let's do it if it suits us'. So Brexit is not so much an aberration as just one side of a tension that runs through the whole project. We have that in common with the USA. I submit my case.

note that the 'rest' stuck together during the negotiations — Olivier5

Sure. Nothing brings a family together like a common enemy. To revisit the old metaphor. But the tensions remain and anti-'ever closer' sentiment is a political theme throughout the union. I was thinking about our conversation today and an old Thurber cartoon came to mind - man to wife - 'Well, who made the magic go out of our marriage - you or me?'

Just rolled a cigarette and please to see the 'E' symbol for weight guarantee is on the packet. Not sure I'd trust UK measures...

allow Irish reunification, repatriate a few orangists ... 'hard border' in the Irish Sea.... bitter pill to swallow — Olivier5

I am afraid that the bitterness would not be blows to the pride of politicians or unionists or even the nations but violence on the streets. I think the pill to swallow slowly over time will be the fiction that there is a UK / EU border. Endless protraction of protocols, crass incompetence, dishonesty and political shallowness may work in this case, too, but it's a situation the UK should not have created. The UK did not have to sign up for ever closer union, QMV and the rest and it is not the only country with tensions between national and European identities. Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty, for example. Grexit crisis. This is not a simple case of an isolationist Britain versus all the rest.

Yes, I agree. 'Understanding' can include both or either the shift in awareness and viewpoint and new knowledge and experience. And it's true that there are both myopia (if not bigotry) and also ignorance. Thank you for introducing Kuhn. If we think of the controversies over the geocentric universe or evolution, requiring a shift in world view not just new information, there are parallels with political shifts like gender identity.

The NI protocols for instance the UK trying to have its cake and eat it too: the UK ought to be both a unitary state from a regulatory standpoint, and honor its obligations in the Good Friday agreement for a lack of hard border between NI and the Republic of Ireland, all the while creating a hard border between itself and the EU, of which the Republic of Ireland is a member. — Olivier5

You have put your finger on something that I do really care about. As for half-in, half-out, we can work it out in time and if we'd stayed in there would still be grieving and rows and crying to leave just as now we've left there is still crying. Oh, but Ireland. When I think of our Michael Gove telling us that there would be a virtual border managed by technological wizardry - and then threats of violence in Liverpool and Belfast - and my goodness, these people are not playing with delays at Dover or with logical curiosities, they are playing with lives and terror.

I used to play a game when listening to interviews with politicians. I would draw a quick sketch map of the islands from Ireland to the Channel Isles and then from listening to what the politician said I would try to draw the border between the UK and the EU. I never managed. All fine, till I got the Irish Sea. Then dotted lines and question marks everywhere. As far as I know it's still like that.