Placing a filter over the grammar of question, such that we read it as a formal question that, in actuality, intends to make a statement, i.e. a rhetorical question, is a contextual maneuver that converts query into statement by social agreement. If this socially constructed reading of question as statement supports paradoxical word play, the grammarian of question can read it as would-be paradoxical piffle. — ucarr

I'm not sure whether you're saying, in that case, that rhetorical questions are, or are not, questions for your purposes (unless you maintain that purpose has nothing to do with whether or not there is a question--because there is only one true question or form of question). Nor am I sure whether you're addressing grammar, or metaphysics, or if they're one and the same.

What about questions asked during the cross-examination of a witness? Are those really questions? The lawyer often knows the answer which will be given.

then a categorical examination of the grammar of question is possible — ucarr

So, it's grammar we're concerned with?

So I've heard. I love the Romans in that movie, and particularly the "Romanus eunt domus" scene.

You don't get to be a Diogenes just because you masturbated in the marketplace.
— Baden

No, but you can be Pilate...as long as you wash the blood off your hands. — Leghorn

As far as we know, Pilate never masturbated in public. You're thinking of his great friend in Rome, Biggus Diccus.

Well, better late than never.

If something exists, so does nothing exist. — Jackson

Well of course. If a thing exists, it's obvious it doesn't exist.

If that's the case, then questions which aren't questions are questions. If Socrates' (which is to say, Plato's) questions are questions, of course, then I suppose rhetorical questions would have to be as well; those questions posed by Plato via his character Socrates were always intended to have a particular effect and never intended as actual inquiries. But I question whether all questions are alike, and think they vary in purpose and according to context.

Casual answer - any question — ucarr

Rhetorical questions?

What is the metaphysical status of a question? — ucarr

Which question is that?

Tertullian (Latin for "turtle") was probably just parroting Paul's curious argument that since God is so much wiser than man, his truth would appear foolish to wise men. So, the more foolish or absurd Christian doctrine is, the more worthy of belief it becomes. "Paul", by the way, derives from the Latin for "small, humble idiot."

The late, great Warren Zevon described the curious blend of fear, loss of self-esteem, belligerence (or perhaps chest-thumping) and eagerness which characterizes the gun culture and so much else in our Great Republic in his song Rottweiler Blues. Have a listen. And by the way, I own three shotguns, and just you try to take them away!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_0e4chKXQ4

Well, it serves as an excuse to watch Springtime for Hitler one more time, which is always worthwhile. I bet Heidi saw it and wished he had thought of it. Well, not really. I don't think Heidegger was capable of irony, anyway.

When mass shootings occur, somehow the debate is always about gun control and never about why kids are massacring kids.

It's not normal, obviously. I would be wondering what kind of rot has seeped into society that's causing it. — Tzeentch

Whatever it may be, you can be certain even less will be done to correct it than is done to control guns. It's not the government's problem to find out why kids are massacring kids and do something about it, is it?

There is no American gun control debate. — Streetlight

There's never a real debate, here, when there's money to be made. Thus far, the more guns, the more money. That may change when we each begin to make our own cheap versions, though I suppose there will always be a market for high-quality firearms, like there is for high-quality booze. By that time, though, gun control won't be a possibility.

Edward Bernays

Nephew of Freud; propagandist who assisted the United States government in the overthrow of Guatemala; got women to smoke; persuaded the entire population of the United States to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast - among other schemes and deviltries. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Indeed. He also fraudulently claimed to be the creator of Bearnaise sauce, explaining the difference in spelling as part of an an effort to get women to smoke tobacco from Guatemala after consuming bacon and eggs smothered with the sauce. His effort came to naught, though.

I would think that a supernatural explanation becomes less plausible the more a natural explanation is provided.

See Warren Zevon, Monkey Wash, Donkey Rinse, or rather hear it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O2S1pH1bOo

It even has "monkey" in it.

But now I think that lots of human technology like the internet and mobile/cell phones is implausible as well as aspects of reality like the basic existence of something, infinity and such like. — Andrew4Handel

In what sense are they supernatural, though? If they're not, then how do they support your point?

Do we need Marxism for this non-estrangement to come about? — schopenhauer1

No, but it would be difficult (though not impossible) to compose a roundelay about Marxism.

The unalienated employee leaps gladsomely into the air, and sings a roundelay having to do with not being estranged

Living in state controlled land, drinking booze, robbed from their culture and nature. All hail to the western way. — Hillary

All hail to the western way of thinking they're all drunks, you mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

Here's a handy list of the many times the apocalypse has been predicted. You may as well make your own prediction.

I think the notion that our judgments are "distorted and flawed" has become so commonplace among many of those of the Academy and their acolytes that it serves merely to discourage judgment, if it doesn't render judging anathema. It's a truism in any case. We judge all the time, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. We can make better judgments than we do. Let's try to do that rather than avoid making them or apologize when we do.

James Lee Burke, a writer who spent a great deal of time in Louisiana and writes of it and its people in his fiction, described it as a "fresh air mental asylum."

I think it's unsurprising Roe v. Wade is being overturned. That a majority of the Justices intended to do so has been apparent, despite their disingenuous and cynical performances during the appointment process (itself something of a farce).

The release of the first draft of an opinion is surprising. The rather shoddy quality of the opinion in various respects is somewhat surprising as well as its likeness to a rant or polemic, but it will likely become sleeker--and slicker--in subsequent drafts.

It's pleasant to think that the Supreme Court Justices are above the fray, devoted merely to the law, but they clearly are not. They're as much political hacks as any of those who grunt and strike poses in Congress or the White House. There was a time when it could be believed they were at least somewhat more intelligent than the ordinary lackeys of the plutocracy who run our government on its behalf, but the increasingly corrupt nature of the selection process seems more and more to assure they're not that either. Thus we have, for example, the nearly catatonic Thomas, Kavanaugh (the court's Eddie Haskell) and Barrett (remarkable for being someone who spent only a few years practicing law but now sits on the Supreme Court).

Can't wait for the next decision.

You know, I'm beginning to think you don't really want to be a shepherd. It could limit your surveillance, though, as well as your exposure to the horrors of our civilization, so you may want to pursue that option nonetheless once you have the courage of your convictions. I suppose that being a shepherd would make it difficult for those third parties you mentioned to keep you informed of those watching you, however. Life is full of difficult choices.

The shepherd features prominently in Christianity. I have a feeling that the OP meant that figuratively. If not, sorry for intrusion. — Agent Smith

I suppose he can be a Christian shepard, then. Or a lamb, an agnus dei.

The only way left for me is to reject this civilization in its totality and embrace the life of a shepherd in a countryside, away from all the trouble and in peace with myself. — Eskander

Then be a shepherd.

Sorry. If a gift isn't accepted, it's not a gift. Similarly, a bargain, like a contract, must be agreed to by the parties. And, since you're not in a position to keep me from speaking, you can't "allow" me to speak. It's as if you were to claim that you allow me to breathe, or eat.

You've bestowed nothing on me, nor has anyone else. The U.S. Constitution merely provides that Congress shall not adopt a law abridging the freedom of speech. That's been extended to state and local government through the 14th amendment. Even the legal right of freedom of speech is, in fact, only a prohibition of state action. It bestows nothing; it isn't a grant.

It's interesting that Mill himself advocated the restriction of speech, to the extent that voting may be construed as speech. So, he proposed that the votes of the better educated and professional citizens count for more than those of the uneducated, and supported the notion of a "clerisy" as suggested by his friend Coleridge--a nationally endowed elite which would guide the opinions of the public.

There's no right to be an idiot, a fraud, a bigot, a liar or to act or speak like one. It's merely the case that one doesn't often run afoul of the law by being one, and does so only in certain circumstances.

My point isn't that speech must be censored, but that there's no "right" to say whatever one wants, no matter how stupid, offensive, malicious, bigoted it may be. There's nothing about stupid, offensive, malicious, bigoted speech which renders it so worthy or so significant or so sacred that restriction of it is improper. For example, I have no "right" to say that Jews (or any other people) should be exterminated, or are subhuman. There's no obligation to consent to such things being said. In most cases people won't raise a fuss, knowing that malicious idiots abound and feeling that they're not worth the effort. But there's no moral or legal basis on which it can be legitimately maintained that such speech is unobjectionable.

The trial of Socrates is an example of state action (prosecution sanctioned by the state). He was also accused for his association with Alcibiades, considered an enemy of the state, and with the Thirty Tyrants, an oligarchy imposed on Athens by Sparta led by Critias, the first cousin of Plato's Mom.

We should be concerned with government regulation and restriction of speech, and that concern may motivate and justify limits on governmental power even as to offensive speech. But otherwise, there's nothing about the flaunting of hate, or racism, or sexism which warrants their protection.

The only legal right to "free speech" in our Great Republic addresses restriction of speech by the government.

So, other people, and any group or organization, may restrict speech as they please, without violating any legal right, provided they aren't government agents or agencies. They may boycott, they may shame,they may bully, they may condemn, they may prohibit others from speaking at their meetings or on their property or using their social media, provided they don't break the law.

We can claim that we have a non-legal right to free speech all we please; we may claim to have a right to anything we like for that matter, we may claim that "there ought to be a law" to no purpose. There's nothing to prevent us from seeking to restrict hateful, bigoted, stupid, speech provided we don't break the law, and there's no obligation that it be tolerated. There's no more reason to tolerate such speech than there is to tolerate such conduct.

Yes, I agree, but the problem lies with the 'choosing wisely'. Not everyone will do so and with what methods and means may the state create a role for you. — Tobias

Sometimes harm is needed for the greater good. — Tobias

The concept of Justice arises from the ubiquity of harm. Because choice will in most cases be tainted by self-interest and other factors peculiar to individuals, it must, in order to be just, be delegated to an intelligence which isn't human, and which selects according to prescribed standards which promote the most fundamental of human urges, which is representative of virtually all of us regardless of circumstances, culture, education, etc.--survival.

Instead of Rawls' suggested starting point for a theory of justice, then, it would be better to consider a Doomsday scenario, like the one described so well here (sorry about the ads):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzddAYYDZkk

Each makes something the case; that the couple are married, the ship named, the ownership of the watch passed on and the bet offered, if not accepted. — Banno

The words, alone, don't make something the case (except perhaps in the case of the bet). Anyone may pronounce someone husband and wife, or name a ship something, or say they bequeath something to someone, and no marriage will result, nor would a ship be named, or a watch bequeathed. The officiant at the marriage must be authorized to marry others, the person naming the ship must be authorized to do so, the bequest must be enforceable under the law.

If the mind is separate from reality, where is it? Describe what it is to be "separate from reality."

But we may have to endure a dismal Dark Age in the meantime. — Gnomon

That age may have begun, at least here is God's favorite country. Already we see Yahoo-like behavior in state and local government, which matches or exceeds that of the federal government (politicians at the federal level being too absorbed in the pursuit of money and pandering to those who have it to concentrate fully on resurrecting the Eisenhower era).

Third World Man is Joni Mitchell’s favourite Dan song. — Wayfarer

I read that. She's a perceptive sort. I agree with her that Gaucho isn't given the credit it's due.

but in the universe of discourse, most of our intellectual history has not been face-to-face, but rather through books, letters, essays. — Fooloso4

True. So far, in any case. I wonder if communication via social media will come to be face-to-face communication through Zoom or holographs or images in virtual reality or some other device. it will be interesting to learn whether the lack of thought and inhibition will persist when that takes place.

so, what about ‘they call Alabama the Crimson Tide, call me Deacon Blues’? You know what that’s about? — Wayfarer

I don't, beyond the fact that Alabama, the Crimson Tide, is one of the winners in the world, and the voice of the lyrics has chosen "Deacon Blues" as his name when he loses.

Hey thanks for setting me straight on that lyric. Always thought it was a reference to a 'latter day' someone or other. (BTW, for bonus points, I know what the Crimson Tide reference means, ask if you're curious.) — Wayfarer

I'm a big fan of Steely Dan, and the solo work of Donald Fagen. Part of the fun for me is figuring out the various references in the lyrics. They managed to insert certain phrases into popular culture, like "Gentleman Loser" (the name of a bar featured in William Gibson's cyberpunk novels). I think they reintroduced "gaslighting" into popular discourse with Gaslighting Abbie from the Two Against Nature album put out in 2000.

My feeling is that social media, email, text messages; the technology of the Internet and communications, discourages thought (and other things as well, such as prudence, consideration, patience). The emphasis is on responding, quickly and emotionally. Little or no effort is involved. The inhibitions imposed by face-to-face contact are absent. There's no need to verify or justify claims, and challenges may be ignored. There's no need to think, and no reward for thinking. The desire is to be the equivalent of the loudest know-it-all at the nearest bar.