Well, you can quote Wittgenstein to support your argument.Do I have a choice? — TheMadFool
Okay, it's not a rigid designator. My mistake.I don't think so. I'm attempting to go beyond the words, to the things themselves the word stands for.
But you do mention words in your OP.
And...? — TheMadFool
That's just an assertion.Words are signs, they stand for things. What they stand for is up to us, whatever we fancy that is. That's Wittgenstein. — TheMadFool
I never suggested otherwise.The essence of a thing is not the same as the essence of a word used to refer to that thing. — TheMadFool
But you do mention words in your OP.I don't think so. I'm attempting to go beyond the words, to the things themselves the word stands for. — TheMadFool
I lost interest in my thread, sorry. :pray:Why do you ask, if you are not responding to replies?
I sent you my reply more than a week ago ...
(https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/605997) — Alkis Piskas
Thats just examples of nasty people misusing doubt in ways of looking out for their own interests. It is well known that the Russian goverment manufacured doubt to encourage distrust in respected institutions. My advice is to ignore such idiots and continue doubting as you normally would.While doubt (and certainty) are inherent aspects of our lives, turning doubt into a fetish is a sure way to set yourself up for manipulation. Science deniers see themselves as bastions of rational discourse, doubting the authority of the men in white coats. — Banno
No middle path.The middle path, doubting here and being certain there, is the only viable approach. The issue it, what is here and which is there. — Banno
My view is that in order for criminal justice to exist (as we know it) we must assume a certain level of autonomy and responsibility of individuals, called "free will". It doesn't matter that your actions from the moment you were born, to what you are going to eat for dinner are determined by the laws of nature. As long as you are a citizen who is participating in a society, it is inevitable that you will be judged by your actions which are guided by your own free will to make choices of your own volition.When libertarian free will was a widely held belief unexamined by philosophy and Plato convinced much of philosophers that you ought to do what is right by definition, moral philosophers searched to know what is right while rarely examining metaethical questions.
However, when the Enlightenment brought hard determinism into the spotlight, the question of whether or not hard determinism entails that ethics is irrelevant became increasingly important, and the fact that free will is presupposed by our justice systems only made the question more important.
Some, such as David Hume, have settled on a soft determinism to avoid the question, while others have answered by proposing that the non-existence of responsibility entails the non-existence of right and wrong.
My view is that hard determinism does not make ethics irrelevant, because right and wrong are also about justification, more specifically, justification of an action, that is, ethics is also about whether an action is justified or not, and free will is irrelevant to justification, therefore we can continue asking moral questions.
Anyway, what do you think ? — Hello Human
This is a pristine example of overthinking. :sparkle:Whenever we decide to do something we believe that what we are about to do actually does make sense. How do we determine if we are right or wrong? How can we be certain that our actions are actually beneficial and not counterproductive? In other words is there a way to know in advance that we are making a mistake? Can we predict the results of our decisions in order to avoid unintended catastrophic consequences? — Average
Hmmm... I bet The US pentagon knows how to create exceptional software (they need to because of all the cyber threats). What's stopping them from selling sofware to ordinary citizens and businesses?The kind that mints boatloads of money. The world's richest people provide the best hints and tips. — TheMadFool
Do business, like everyone else. Duh! :grin: — TheMadFool
I do not know about forced labor, but doing away with taxation and relying on bonds is a horrible idea, and will leave the government massively underfunded. President George W. Bush even had this strategy of "starving the beast" which basically meant that we can achieve smaller government by cutting taxes. Long story short, it didn't work. The US government, underfunded by tax cuts sustained its overblown government budget by acquiring a load of debt. The only thing George W. Bush did was starve younger generations with an increased debt burden.Maybe bringing back government bonds, and government begging, would help to fund its projects without all the theft and forced labor. — NOS4A2