Never heard of him. Looked him up.

Which "this" do you disagree with? — 180 Proof

The whole thing. Your denial that religious sentiment could be more than aesthetics of custom, Dixie or elsewhere.

I would have thought in numbers too numerous to count. — Tom Storm

It's the same here in the US and I'm sure elsewhere. Good post.

"We need jobs and housing, not gender neutral pronouns." — Tom Storm

Exactly right.

Human embodiment brings to my mind an image of a man juggling, while navigating a tightrope. — Inyenzi

I assume by "embodiment," you mean being born. Is that correct? If so, you're just making the antinatalism argument that gets rehashed every few weeks here on the forum. Which is no reason for you not to have at it again.

You live in more 'civilized' parts than i do. Religious belief is the aesthetics of custom around these parts (US southeast). No matter how fashionable youtube & Dawkins have made it, "atheism" is still rejected outright, I observe, as an aestheic reflex rather than for reasoned objections. "Something is up there, I feel it. This life isn't all there is." That's the usual ... and the occasional old timey "If you believe in nothing, then you'll fall for anything." Mindless anti-atheism. I suppose this says more about people than about either 'believing' or 'unbelieving'. — 180 Proof

I really disagree with this, but it's a metaphysical argument that will not be satisfying to atheists or believers, so I've avoided jumping in the pot.

1) If we assume that reality exist, we are forced to assume the existence of something opposed to reality: it is logically impossible to think of anything without assuming the existence of something that is not-that-thing. For example, you can’t think of number 10 without assuming the existence of something that is not number 10. We can’t think of stones without assuming the existence of something different from a stone. — Angelo

This is just the pointless why is there something rather than nothing argument. Not much of a foundation for a broad ontological understanding.

2) ...If something is non-real, then it exists only in our brain... — Angelo

The simulation hypothesis does not propose something non-real. It only proposes something beyond our normally perceived "reality." If there is a computer somewhere running the T Clark's Universe Program, it is part of reality, just beyond our ability to detect it.

3) So, if we want to consider reality in a honest way, we can’t ignore the involvement of our brain in this consideration. So, this is the cage we can’t escape: our brain. It is humanly impossible to think without using our brain and this is exactly the problem. — Angelo

I don't disagree with this, but I don't see how it's relevant to the simulation theory.

4) This means that the assumption of the existence of reality leads us to the necessary conclusion that we have no way to think about it, because, as soon as we think about it, we must realize that we are doing it from inside the cage that is our brain. — Angelo

I'm thinking about it right now. I'm doing it from inside the cage that is my mind. Ok, ok, sorry. Let's not get into the whole mind/brain kerfuffle.

5) If we have no way to think about reality, than it doesn’t exist; the only way it can exist is as an illusion of our brain. — Angelo

See response to your Item 4.

6) As an obvious consequence, I need to apply what I said to itself. The consequence is that what I have said hasn’t any realiability, can’t be considered something true... — Angelo

I don't understand this argument at all.

This just means that we live in an illusion and we don’t know what it is. — Angelo

Again, I agree but it's not relevant to the simulation issue.

8) If anybody would like to refute what I have said, they can’t do it without using their brain, so, I and they are in the same condition. — Angelo

Ditto.

There. [irony] I'm sure I convinced you that I'm correct, so we can move on to something else. [/irony]

"I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content." ~Conan of Cimmeria — Queen of the Black Coast, 1934

Conan the Barbarian Philosopher

Yes. I agree.

If existence is a simulation how would that change how we see the laws of physics and how we interpret scientific discovery. Will that mean metaphysics science bare more relevance than physical science? — SteveMinjares

It all comes down to whether or not we can, even in theory, become aware of and demonstrate that our reality is a simulation created by someone else's technology. If we can't, then it wouldn't change anything. A simulation that is completely consistent and indistinguishable from our everyday reality is that everyday reality. If we can show we live in a simulated reality, we've just opened up a new scientific discipline. Or religion maybe.

without grounds to doubt, tacit belief suffices. — 180 Proof

Except when there are serious consequences for being wrong.

A civil engineer of course. — unenlightened

Of course.

Now who here broke that mutual social relation? I'm sure that for the new neighbors and the engineer, it was us, because we were the ones interfering with their work.

And just so you know, the terrain is slowly sliding, it's evident. — baker

You need to, very civilly, call your attorney and, probably, your own engineer. And the town engineer and building inspector.

All this is just a way of asking, what more-or-less technical aspect in philosophy shows up in your personal life? — Manuel

Two things I guess:

I'm retired now, but I worked as an engineer for 30 years. In that job, the most important decisions I had to make hinged on what I knew, how I knew it, how certain I was, and what would be the consequences if I were wrong. So, I take epistemology very seriously. It's hard to tell which came first, my interest in knowledge or my decision to become an engineer.

Here's a song I sing over and over again. There are many ways of looking at reality. These different views are metaphysical constructs. Metaphysical beliefs are not true or false, they are more or less useful in specific situations. This way of seeing things makes it much easier for me to understand, if not necessarily to agree with, other people's beliefs and values.

people tend to conflate the question “what is art?” with the question “what is good art?” — Pfhorrest

Robert Pirsig, author of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance," solved this problem by defining art as "high quality endeavor." The example he gave was the very skilled welder who fixed the fender on his motorcycle. I've come to think this is not a very useful definition. In a previous discussion, someone, was it you @praxis? said that art is anything created with an aesthetic purpose, i.e. intended to be judged by aesthetic standards. I find that a really helpful way of looking at things. It also deals with the good art vs. bad art question.

What does that say about the broader question raised in the OP? To me it says define first, judge later. A man is an adult male human. Of course, these days we have to describe what a male is too, but let's not get into that here.

If the success of MLK’s movement is to be judged by its popularity, then by that standard blm and crt are wildly successful , given that only 30 years ago a tiny handful of scholars were advocating its theoretical foundations and now it has become standard rhetoric in most universities and in many large corporations . I don’t think its languaged of incivility will persuade the opposition any more than MLK’s appeal to reason , but like that prior movement , it will grow. of its own accord among the like-minded. — Joshs

I've tried to be clear, I think the correct measure by which King or BLM should be judged is effectiveness. I'm saying BLM's methods won't work in the only way that matters - by making the US a safer and more secure place for black people. Apparently you disagree. Or maybe you don't care. Many BLM supporters just want to vent their rage and resentment against white people. Knock yourselves out.

Is there such a thing as a "creative arc"? A sort of life cycle of an artists vision which evolves from their early days when their work was full of untapped potential, through to the "magnum opus" phase in which they did their best work, and finally falling off into a sort of denouement phase in which they rehash their old successes? — Noble Dust

I think there often is an arc. I don't think it's inevitable. I think it is common with authors that my favorite works are their earliest. It seems like there is a vein of stories for them to mine. When the vein runs out, they often keep going, trying to recreate the magic. I think of John Le Carre and Alan Furst, two wonderful writers that I generally avoid these days. Even though I think "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy," and "The Polish Officer" are wonderful, I've been disappointed too many times with more recent books.

Which brings us to country music. I include in that category much folk and what they call "roots" music. Country musicians don't seem to be trying so hard to go anywhere. They just want to make good music, even if it is a cover of a classic rather than something newly written. Do you know how many singers have covered "Poncho and Lefty." Country albums are much more likely to have instrumentals. Sure, a lot of it is crap, but a lot of everything is crap.

The Beatles, Shakespeare, Beethoven and Mozart, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Picasso etc... These people made significantly more in their field than their competitors. Beethoven and Mozart made 400% more music than the average composer. Kobe Bryant was always the first one to practice and the last one to leave. He literally took the most shots.

The thing is, we don't like these people for everything they've made. We only pay attention and notice a few key pieces of their work. Most of the music written by Mozart we never have and never will hear.

As far as artists having an arc.. I think artists rehash old hits or masterpieces because they've found a formula, market niche where they have a "monopoly" or reliable source of money and attention. I think artists can continue to create new and wonderful things if they keep taking more shots, instead of fear forcing them to rely on shots they've already taken. — Kasperanza

I think this is a good way of looking at it. I think of Woody Allen. He makes a movie every two or three years. Some are masterpieces. Some don't work. Those in the middle tend to be good, workmanlike films. Even when they don't work, his movies are well-made.

It's always the squeaky wheel that gets some grease. — unenlightened

Martin Luther King was a pretty squeaky wheel. [gratuitously provocative] I also don't remember that the suffragettes burned down any buildings[/gratuitously provocative].

Clearly you don't see the foolishness of white society demanding respect from the movement demanding basic equal treatment for black folks. If only they were like us, everything would be alright. — unenlightened

I don't "demand respect." I only claim that the social justice warrior's approach won't work.

I'm not crazy about head-butting with people who disagree on profound cultural matters. You get a headache and people tend to increase in their vehemence, almost as a defensive strategy. — Tom Storm

Again, for me it's all about effectiveness. We can argue whether I'm right about that, but I think any other discussion on this issue is pointless.

No, they need their compliance. Until black lives do actually matter as much as white lives, there is no civility because civility is a mutual relation. — unenlightened

For better or worse, that's not how it works, no matter how many times you say it before you stomp your feet and hold your breath.

You cannot show respect to someone who shows you no respect; it is meaningless. Not civility, but mere servility. — unenlightened

Yes, you're right. That fool Martin Luther King got it all wrong.

What I see from the radical left is an urgency and importance that creates impatience and frustration and that's where the anger and incivility come from. There are civil ways of conveying radical leftist ideas and quite a few posters on this forum demonstrate it. — Judaka

However understandable an angry rejection of civility may be, the real issue is effectiveness. Black Lives Matter and other similar movements will not achieve their desired results by insulting and demeaning almost half of all Americans. Whether they like it or not, they need the support of those people to get what they want. Left wing activists and traditional liberals by themselves cannot make this a hospitable country for black people, hispanics, or gay and transgender people. They need to get the other guys on board too. In order to do that, they need to show some respect. That's what civility is about - showing respect.

Translation: it pisses people off when their good intentions are being attacked and condemned on the basis of accusations of agendas of hegemony , privilege, domination and bias that is supposedly hidden and implicit in the idea of individualistic civility. — Joshs

Upvote for providing the translation and for it's content.

I think I came at this from a bit different direction than you did. I don't necessarily think that a government or society should provide all the things I identified. It's the other way around. We can't call our society a good one if a significant number of people don't have the benefits I listed. If everyone can live a safe, healthy, secure life with enough good food and a decent place to live, what does it matter what specific policies lead to that outcome? If people are living good lives, what difference does it make if there are taxes?

So I thought I would ask here and see if anyone has any thoughts on what rules or attributes you would like to see in the civilization you participate in. — RoadWarrior9

I'll take a swing at it:

• Adequate healthcare, education, security, nutrition, housing, work, community, and opportunity for everyone
• Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
• No reruns of "Two and a Half Men"
• Deport Dr. Phil.... to Australia

I'm serious about the first two.

No taxes
Free quality health care for everyone — RoadWarrior9

Please explain how you get free healthcare with no taxes.

Well, certainly that's what he means by "I think of civility as akin to table manners" you gibbering, drooling, fatuous, miserable, pompous, self-righteous, preening, inane cretin. What else would he mean? — Ciceronianus the White

Upvote for best use of a thesaurus, although I'm sure you didn't need one.

[2] Well, certainly, a single grain is simply the least in a series of cases ordered according to the acceptability of 'heap' as an English descriptor. — bongo fury

Definition of "heap" - a disorderly collection of objects placed haphazardly on top of each other.

Definition of "collection" - a group of things or people.

Definition of "group" - a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together.

Definition of "number" - several.

Definition of "several" - ....

I guess it's turtles all the way down.

Interesting.

I think it must be just an artefact of familiarity. That is, we've been treating the apple and the tree as distinct for so long that it doesn't seem we could do otherwise. — Banno

I agree, but I don't think "familiarity" is the right word. I think it's something more deep-seated. I think that's the reason it's a tougher argument to make - seeing reality as a collection of objects is natural for us. Seeing it as a continuum with fluid boundary distinctions isn't.

I do indeed venture that there are no natural boundaries; that like simples, boundaries are not found but inflicted on the world. The point being that no matter how we divide stuff up, we might have done otherwise. I'd be more than happy to consider counter instances, should you have any at hand. — Banno

You and I agree on this, but what gives me pause is that some divisions do seem more "natural" than others. A bunch of sand may or may not be a heap, but that spherical object hanging on that apple tree over there is definitely an apple. A tree is pretty much a tree even if a bunch of trees may or may not be a forest, copse, woodlot, woods, grove, or stand.

There are so many different contexts, and ways of being uncivil, different intentions and what else accompanies it, there's no way to address them all. — Judaka

Your post makes a good case.

the war criminality of Donald Rumsfeld and most of America's political leadership) — StreetlightX

Criticizing the words and actions of Donald Rumsfeld and recognizing the consequences of those actions is not the same thing as gloating over his death. The problem with hatred, anger, and vitriol is that, in most cases, it doesn't lead to the best solution to the problem at hand. You see that now in the US. The hatred and resentment have taken over and become more important than the issues that generated them.

That is, civility isn't some 'neutral' position that merely concerns 'style' while the substance of political argument is elsewhere. Rather, the demand for civility is political from the get-go: it says, only these claims are worth entertaining, while these others are not. Couple this with the fact that 'civility' is always the privilege of those who are not affected by issues - or at least are comfortable with them - it basically puts the ball in their court and keeps it there. — StreetlightX

I think this is really wrong-headed. When I say "hello" to someone on the street, when I open the door for someone, when I speak calmly about important issues, when I say "thank you" when I buy something, I am setting the stage. I am expressing my understanding that we are all here together as a community and that I intend to treat others with respect. It's an act of recognition.

Is courtesy often used hypocritically or cynically as a rhetorical weapon? Yes, of course. Is it ever ok to raise your voice and yell out your anger? Yes, of course it is.

The reason I'm having a somewhat random whack at Banno is because his views on language and definitions prevent him talking about things that I and many others want to talk about, — bert1

Yes, our friend Banno can be a pain in the ass. I have no objections to you giving him a hard time, it's certainly something he likes to do to others. I think it comes from eating all those didgeridoos and billabongs.

Be that as it may, I don't think his position in this matter is dogmatic.

Have I got this wrong? — bert1

I wasn't questioning your usage, I just wanted to make sure I understood.

So even 'bachelor' could be vague, as at precisely what point does someone go from being unmarried to married? — bert1

In the good old days, it was after the marriage had been "consummated." Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more.

unanimously a heap (e.g. a million grains). — bongo fury

A bunch of sand with a million grains, or a trillion or a quadrillion, would not be a heap if they were spread out on a surface a single grain thick. It's not just number, the configuration is also important.

Definitions are not all essentialist - Banno himself showed this. — bert1

This is what Wikipedia says about "essentialism."

Essentialism is the view that objects have a set of attributes that are necessary to their identity.[1] In early Western thought, Plato's idealism held that all things have such an "essence"—an "idea" or "form". In Categories, Aristotle similarly proposed that all objects have a substance that, as George Lakoff put it, "make the thing what it is, and without which it would be not that kind of thing".[2] The contrary view—non-essentialism—denies the need to posit such an "essence'".

When you identify a definition as "essentialist," do you mean that the definition corresponds to a natural boundary inherent in the phenomenon and not established by human consensus? If so, I, and I think @Banno and @Michael, don't believe any phenomenon has an essentialist definition.

Banno's position is extreme and dogmatic. — bert1

I don't agree.

adding a single grain can never turn a non-heap into a heap then — Michael

Following the Clark method, developed by philosopher T Clark in 2021, there would be a way to determine when a single grain turns a non-heap into a heap.

There's no contradiction or paradox there. There is, however, perhaps implicit in the argument that to become a heap there must be a point at which adding a single grain "turns it into" a heap, but that would be essentialism which ought be rejected. — Michael

If we cared enough, which we don't, we could set up a method for determining the meaning of "heap" the same way they measure the toxicity of a substance. LD(lethal dose)50 is the amount of the substance that will kill a rat in 50% of cases. So we could have HD("heap" definition)50, the point at which 50% of a group of people would define a bunch of sand as a heap. Or we could spend our time polishing the silver, which would be more productive.

Take the heap/sorites paradox. The heap-ness has nothing at all to do with the sand grains individually but what it actually is is the shape (roughly conical). — TheMadFool

I don't think there is any good reason to fiddle around with "heap" to make it more precise, but if there were, this would be a good way of going about it.

My view is that a grouping of items is an existent entity wherever that grouping exists, whether that's in a person's mind or outside the mind. In other words, there's one existent heap outside the mind, but another existent entity is a person's mental image of that heap. Anyways, that's my view. — Roger

I feel differently. I don't think things exist as phenomena separate from the undifferentiated world until someone like us brings them into existence by naming them. That is the essence of what Lao Tzu wrote in the Tao Te Ching.