|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 21 2018 00:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 00:05 IgnE wrote:On May 20 2018 22:47 Dan HH wrote:On May 19 2018 02:32 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2018 02:18 IgnE wrote:On May 19 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On May 19 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote:On May 18 2018 23:46 farvacola wrote:
That's all fine and dandy, but to conflate the acts of humans and the acts of animals is to commit a pretty grievous category error, no matter how apt the comparison may seem. The long and short of it is that the "right" approach towards giving words to the culpability of humans for the things they do is one that couches itself in that which is human, not that which is animal. This is not to say that comparisons with animals are totally off limits, rather that there is pretty much always going to be a better way to go about describing things. is it not the possibility of radical evil that is the sine qua non of "human" itself? That seems maybe a touch cynical... on the contrary; the cynical view is to say that humans cannot choose evil (and hence cannot choose good): "they (we?) are just animals, determined in every way by the totality of things" Cynicism on a gradient, rather than being binary. A touch of cynicism is measurably less than the cynicism of(created by?) that deterministic view of human nature. I don't see how it's cynical to think that humans are not magically exempt from causality. Is the universe itself magically exempt from causality? If not, what caused it? I don’t know, and that’s perfectly acceptable as answers go. Ignorance is far better than a bad answer.
I'd say rather that honest ignorance is superior to false certainty.
|
We can only say that all evidence points to that the universe is not exempt to causality, and there isn't as yet a single piece of evidence that it does not. But that is vearing in the "can we know truth" aspect of science.
|
This is a beautiful story. I just have to share it. People have to see what can happen if you elect the right people. A progressive mayor, now running for office of Lt Governor California or something. She hits all the targets: from the environment to reduced homocide, renters movement, and even co-ops and public banks. She's going all the way in the next American Revolution. I'm not sure if she mentioned it, but I'm pretty sure I can assume she's anti-war as well.
Here she is in an interview with Jimmy Dore. By the way, Jimmy's been labeled as a "far left conspiracy theorist" according to CNN, at the bottom of an article under some headline that mentioned Syria, the alt-right and Nazis. Which is basically why I decided he might be alright, so I checked him out - he's a little dim, but awesome - this is why I'm wary of mass corporate media placing labels on things:
+ Show Spoiler +
Some highlights from Wikipedia: Gayle McLaughlin.
McLaughlin holds a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology, with graduate study in psychology and education. She has worked as a postal clerk, teacher, caregiver for the elderly, and tutor/clinician for children with learning disabilities. She has also worked in the capacity of support staff for various not-for-profit health and educational organizations. Under McLaughlin's mayoralty, the "small, blue-collar city best known for its Chevron refinery has become the unlikely vanguard for anticorporate, left-wing activism". She also spearheaded a 2014 effort to raise Richmond's local minimum wage to US$12.30 per hour. McLaughlin was criticized for attending an Occupy rally on Veterans Day of 2011 instead of a symbolic ship-launching portrayal at the former Richmond Shipyards. The city thus has a right and duty to prevent foreclosures, as well as a legal necessity to protect its citizens: "People were tricked. They were sold these bad loans" which were far in excess of their value, and made Richmond "a community being victimized". In March 2013, the City Council voted 6-1 in favor of partnering with a San Francisco firm, Mortgage Resolution Partners (MRP), to begin enactment of the plan.
Opponents in Richmond countered that the plan would help only a small subsection of mortgage-holders, while two banks, Wells Fargo and Deutsche Bank, immediately filed lawsuits against the city. Even after her mayoralty ended, Chevron continued to oppose her vigorously, "spending some $3 million – an unheard of amount for a small, local election – to campaign against McLaughlin and her slate" in the 2014 city council elections. She was nonetheless elected to the City Council in 2014 and served in this role until July 18, 2017, when she resigned to seek a higher political office. McLaughlin is not without critics such as the East Bay Times, which referred to her and the RPA in a 2016 editorial as "the biggest deniers of the city's fiscal crisis."
These are all remarkable commendations for a US politician (for those that don't know, East Bay Times is part of this group and so whatever their opinion is: the opposite is most likely to be good). You can beat the banks, America!
Here's another totally awesome politician. Alison Hartson. Also running for something in California. My god. Why aren't these people in office already. She's going to be Secretary of Education one day if the FBI doesn't shoot her for being a socialist. Look at her face at minutes 13-15 when she talks about improving schools and at about min 30 when she talks about fighting. She is out for blood. She's such a great speaker, too, really articulates her points well:
+ Show Spoiler +
Federal minimum wage 15 dollar, maybe higher in some states. Medicare for all. Free optional preschool from birth to all. Staunchly anti-war. Notice how none of these women say anything about the gays, anything about their gender or even fucking Donald Trump. She even mentions treason without talking about Russia. It's so fucking irrelevant, why is all that such a public fight on American corporate media?
Fuck CNN so hard for labeling Jimmy a "far left conspiracy theorist". Fuck YouTube for reducing his traffic to "combat Russian propaganda" and demonetizing his videos. All of that and the general lack of coverage on things that matter is essentially corporate warfare against exactly these kinds of people, it's political oppression by the rich, and it can even be considered straight-up suppression of basic human rights. Everybody needs as much as exposure as possible to these kind of candidates.
Especially in light of the dire consequences of neoliberalism and the American Empire exemplified so excellently by Jimmy's highlight a particular interview with Thomas Friedman in the first 3 minutes of this video. "Going house to house from Basra to Baghdad. We hit Iraq because we could." That's neoliberalism and Empire summed up for you right there. Motivated by, no doubt, a ton of racism as well.
What people like Peter Joseph (think new human rights movement, occupy wallstreet, and post-scarcity) are saying doesn't have to be a pipe dream. You can slowly get there, inch by inch, with progressive politics like that of the people above. But the force of greed (defined as the oppression by the 10%, as laid out here in The Atlantic) works against this with all its might -- as is hopefully evident in Gayle's story as well as the opposition that Bernie faced in the DNC and corporate media (two entities that are both dominated by10%-ers).
Yay, I turned it into a critique of neoliberalism, the media and corporations.
|
some interesting people; not around my neck of the woods so not gonna look too deep at 'em, but interesting to hear about. I recommend against assuming about anyone's stance; as when you like people it's very easy to project your own beliefs on to them and thus regard them as being even better.
sounds less like a critique than a rant to me, as it's not focused on explanations or detailing the media's and corp flaws but just yellin at them for doing bad things (which they do do a lot of)
I don't really have anything more to say; but would happily comment if there's any specific points of yours you'd like to hear feedback on.
|
On May 21 2018 00:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 00:05 IgnE wrote:On May 20 2018 22:47 Dan HH wrote:On May 19 2018 02:32 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2018 02:18 IgnE wrote:On May 19 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On May 19 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote:On May 18 2018 23:46 farvacola wrote:
That's all fine and dandy, but to conflate the acts of humans and the acts of animals is to commit a pretty grievous category error, no matter how apt the comparison may seem. The long and short of it is that the "right" approach towards giving words to the culpability of humans for the things they do is one that couches itself in that which is human, not that which is animal. This is not to say that comparisons with animals are totally off limits, rather that there is pretty much always going to be a better way to go about describing things. is it not the possibility of radical evil that is the sine qua non of "human" itself? That seems maybe a touch cynical... on the contrary; the cynical view is to say that humans cannot choose evil (and hence cannot choose good): "they (we?) are just animals, determined in every way by the totality of things" Cynicism on a gradient, rather than being binary. A touch of cynicism is measurably less than the cynicism of(created by?) that deterministic view of human nature. I don't see how it's cynical to think that humans are not magically exempt from causality. Is the universe itself magically exempt from causality? If not, what caused it? I don’t know, and that’s perfectly acceptable as answers go. Ignorance is far better than a bad answer.
or we can say, like Kant, that causality is properly restricted to the realm of phenomena and so does not apply to the totality of the universe, its existence as such. and we can also say that consciousness is a hard problem
|
On May 21 2018 02:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 00:31 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2018 00:05 IgnE wrote:On May 20 2018 22:47 Dan HH wrote:On May 19 2018 02:32 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2018 02:18 IgnE wrote:On May 19 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On May 19 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote:On May 18 2018 23:46 farvacola wrote:
That's all fine and dandy, but to conflate the acts of humans and the acts of animals is to commit a pretty grievous category error, no matter how apt the comparison may seem. The long and short of it is that the "right" approach towards giving words to the culpability of humans for the things they do is one that couches itself in that which is human, not that which is animal. This is not to say that comparisons with animals are totally off limits, rather that there is pretty much always going to be a better way to go about describing things. is it not the possibility of radical evil that is the sine qua non of "human" itself? That seems maybe a touch cynical... on the contrary; the cynical view is to say that humans cannot choose evil (and hence cannot choose good): "they (we?) are just animals, determined in every way by the totality of things" Cynicism on a gradient, rather than being binary. A touch of cynicism is measurably less than the cynicism of(created by?) that deterministic view of human nature. I don't see how it's cynical to think that humans are not magically exempt from causality. Is the universe itself magically exempt from causality? If not, what caused it? I don’t know, and that’s perfectly acceptable as answers go. Ignorance is far better than a bad answer. or we can say, like Kant, that causality is properly restricted to the realm of phenomena and so does not apply to the totality of the universe, its existence as such. and we can also say that consciousness is a hard problem
And that was before physicists discovered that the universe is probabilistic as soon as you go small enough.
That being said good old Immanuel’s main contribution is to place old fashioned metaphysical problems such as, precisely, the question of free will and determinism out of reach of human reason. Hell, in Critique of Pure reason, the chapter « The antinomy of pure reason » actually demonstrates with extreme certainty both the thesis: « There are in the world causes through freedom »
and antithesis: « There is no freedom, but all is nature » in order to demonstrate that we have no clue and never will.
|
Blankenship with the 3rd party bid?? ehhh??? plzplz
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/don-blankenship-third-party-constitution-party-600779
West Virginia coal baron and former prisoner Don Blankenship announced on Monday that he plans to launch a long-shot third-party Senate bid after finishing a distant third in this month’s Republican primary.
Blankenship said he would run in the general election as the Constitution Party nominee. But he would need to overcome a “sore loser” law in West Virginia that prevents failed candidates in a main-party primary from refiling to run in the general election under another party’s banner.
Blankenship said he’s prepared to challenge that law in court if needed. If he’s successful, his move that could hurt the GOP’s prospects of unseating Democratic incumbent Joe Manchin in November.
|
On May 21 2018 23:13 Mohdoo wrote:Blankenship with the 3rd party bid?? ehhh??? plzplz https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/don-blankenship-third-party-constitution-party-600779Show nested quote +
West Virginia coal baron and former prisoner Don Blankenship announced on Monday that he plans to launch a long-shot third-party Senate bid after finishing a distant third in this month’s Republican primary.
Blankenship said he would run in the general election as the Constitution Party nominee. But he would need to overcome a “sore loser” law in West Virginia that prevents failed candidates in a main-party primary from refiling to run in the general election under another party’s banner.
Blankenship said he’s prepared to challenge that law in court if needed. If he’s successful, his move that could hurt the GOP’s prospects of unseating Democratic incumbent Joe Manchin in November.
what're the odds he's successful in his challenge to the law?
it seems like the kind of thing which would've been challenged in court many times already and would've already been ruled on one way or the other.
|
On May 21 2018 02:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 00:31 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2018 00:05 IgnE wrote:On May 20 2018 22:47 Dan HH wrote:On May 19 2018 02:32 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2018 02:18 IgnE wrote:On May 19 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On May 19 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote:On May 18 2018 23:46 farvacola wrote:
That's all fine and dandy, but to conflate the acts of humans and the acts of animals is to commit a pretty grievous category error, no matter how apt the comparison may seem. The long and short of it is that the "right" approach towards giving words to the culpability of humans for the things they do is one that couches itself in that which is human, not that which is animal. This is not to say that comparisons with animals are totally off limits, rather that there is pretty much always going to be a better way to go about describing things. is it not the possibility of radical evil that is the sine qua non of "human" itself? That seems maybe a touch cynical... on the contrary; the cynical view is to say that humans cannot choose evil (and hence cannot choose good): "they (we?) are just animals, determined in every way by the totality of things" Cynicism on a gradient, rather than being binary. A touch of cynicism is measurably less than the cynicism of(created by?) that deterministic view of human nature. I don't see how it's cynical to think that humans are not magically exempt from causality. Is the universe itself magically exempt from causality? If not, what caused it? I don’t know, and that’s perfectly acceptable as answers go. Ignorance is far better than a bad answer. or we can say, like Kant, that causality is properly restricted to the realm of phenomena and so does not apply to the totality of the universe, its existence as such. and we can also say that consciousness is a hard problem
It's been almost 10 years since I read anything by him but I'm not aware of him suggesting that. Kant's main premise for reality as it is was that no properties can be assigned to it with any certainty because we are unable to perceive it as it is, this should include any relationship it may or may not have with causality. For example if time were an abstraction of entropy, what's to stop causality being an abstraction of a property of entropy?
Regardless, going back to accountability, our society doesn't explain that by denying that time and space are real or that real knowledge is possible, but it passively accepts that the distinction between free will and the perfect illusion of free will is not relevant.
Personally I find that drawing the line for agency right below us is far more anthropocentric than thinking we can derive some definite laws of nature from observation with our limited tools.
|
On May 21 2018 18:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 02:40 IgnE wrote:On May 21 2018 00:31 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2018 00:05 IgnE wrote:On May 20 2018 22:47 Dan HH wrote:On May 19 2018 02:32 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2018 02:18 IgnE wrote:On May 19 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On May 19 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote:On May 18 2018 23:46 farvacola wrote:
That's all fine and dandy, but to conflate the acts of humans and the acts of animals is to commit a pretty grievous category error, no matter how apt the comparison may seem. The long and short of it is that the "right" approach towards giving words to the culpability of humans for the things they do is one that couches itself in that which is human, not that which is animal. This is not to say that comparisons with animals are totally off limits, rather that there is pretty much always going to be a better way to go about describing things. is it not the possibility of radical evil that is the sine qua non of "human" itself? That seems maybe a touch cynical... on the contrary; the cynical view is to say that humans cannot choose evil (and hence cannot choose good): "they (we?) are just animals, determined in every way by the totality of things" Cynicism on a gradient, rather than being binary. A touch of cynicism is measurably less than the cynicism of(created by?) that deterministic view of human nature. I don't see how it's cynical to think that humans are not magically exempt from causality. Is the universe itself magically exempt from causality? If not, what caused it? I don’t know, and that’s perfectly acceptable as answers go. Ignorance is far better than a bad answer. or we can say, like Kant, that causality is properly restricted to the realm of phenomena and so does not apply to the totality of the universe, its existence as such. and we can also say that consciousness is a hard problem And that was before physicists discovered that the universe is probabilistic as soon as you go small enough. That being said good old Immanuel’s main contribution is to place old fashioned metaphysical problems such as, precisely, the question of free will and determinism out of reach of human reason. Hell, in Critique of Pure reason, the chapter « The antinomy of pure reason » actually demonstrates with extreme certainty both the thesis: « There are in the world causes through freedom » and antithesis: « There is no freedom, but all is nature » in order to demonstrate that we have no clue and never will.
I'm not sold on the idea that probabilistic laws are necessarily a problem for determinism in the philosophical sense (certainly, by the mathematical definition, they aren't deterministic, but mathematical determinism isn't trying to discuss free will). Even if the way our brains work is almost entirely a product of at least slightly random processes, I don't think that gives us any more control, it just makes our future thoughts, circumstances and actions unknowable, even in theory given perfect at-the-time information and computation. Although these are ramblings at best.
I do tend to agree though that actual answers to these sorts of questions are unknowable. Even finding agreeable and sensible starting formalism to ask these questions is a mine-field with more grenades than ground.
|
On May 21 2018 23:23 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 02:40 IgnE wrote:On May 21 2018 00:31 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2018 00:05 IgnE wrote:On May 20 2018 22:47 Dan HH wrote:On May 19 2018 02:32 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2018 02:18 IgnE wrote:On May 19 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On May 19 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote:On May 18 2018 23:46 farvacola wrote:
That's all fine and dandy, but to conflate the acts of humans and the acts of animals is to commit a pretty grievous category error, no matter how apt the comparison may seem. The long and short of it is that the "right" approach towards giving words to the culpability of humans for the things they do is one that couches itself in that which is human, not that which is animal. This is not to say that comparisons with animals are totally off limits, rather that there is pretty much always going to be a better way to go about describing things. is it not the possibility of radical evil that is the sine qua non of "human" itself? That seems maybe a touch cynical... on the contrary; the cynical view is to say that humans cannot choose evil (and hence cannot choose good): "they (we?) are just animals, determined in every way by the totality of things" Cynicism on a gradient, rather than being binary. A touch of cynicism is measurably less than the cynicism of(created by?) that deterministic view of human nature. I don't see how it's cynical to think that humans are not magically exempt from causality. Is the universe itself magically exempt from causality? If not, what caused it? I don’t know, and that’s perfectly acceptable as answers go. Ignorance is far better than a bad answer. or we can say, like Kant, that causality is properly restricted to the realm of phenomena and so does not apply to the totality of the universe, its existence as such. and we can also say that consciousness is a hard problem It's been almost 10 years since I read anything by him but I'm not aware of him suggesting that. Kant's main premise for reality as it is was that no properties can be assigned to it with any certainty because we are unable to perceive it as it is, this should include any relationship it may or may not have with causality. For example if time were an abstraction of entropy, what's to stop causality being an abstraction of a property of entropy? Regardless, going back to accountability, our society doesn't explain that by denying that time and space are real or that real knowledge is possible, but it passively accepts that the distinction between free will and the perfect illusion of free will is not relevant. Personally I find that drawing the line for agency right below us is far more anthropocentric than thinking we can derive some definite laws of nature from observation with our limited tools.
causality is something properly restricted to phenomena, like entropy. biff points out the Kantian antinomies in the post above yours. what if time were an abstraction of entropy and causality were an abstraction of a property of entropy? what would that tell us about whether the universe was caused or what caused the universe?
|
On May 21 2018 02:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 00:31 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2018 00:05 IgnE wrote:On May 20 2018 22:47 Dan HH wrote:On May 19 2018 02:32 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2018 02:18 IgnE wrote:On May 19 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On May 19 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote:On May 18 2018 23:46 farvacola wrote:
That's all fine and dandy, but to conflate the acts of humans and the acts of animals is to commit a pretty grievous category error, no matter how apt the comparison may seem. The long and short of it is that the "right" approach towards giving words to the culpability of humans for the things they do is one that couches itself in that which is human, not that which is animal. This is not to say that comparisons with animals are totally off limits, rather that there is pretty much always going to be a better way to go about describing things. is it not the possibility of radical evil that is the sine qua non of "human" itself? That seems maybe a touch cynical... on the contrary; the cynical view is to say that humans cannot choose evil (and hence cannot choose good): "they (we?) are just animals, determined in every way by the totality of things" Cynicism on a gradient, rather than being binary. A touch of cynicism is measurably less than the cynicism of(created by?) that deterministic view of human nature. I don't see how it's cynical to think that humans are not magically exempt from causality. Is the universe itself magically exempt from causality? If not, what caused it? I don’t know, and that’s perfectly acceptable as answers go. Ignorance is far better than a bad answer. or we can say, like Kant, that causality is properly restricted to the realm of phenomena and so does not apply to the totality of the universe, its existence as such. and we can also say that consciousness is a hard problem
I am completely lost on this tangent. I thought it was about whether or not equating humans to animals was a horrific faux pas or not, not about the meaning of life.
|
The entire discuss is grounded in the philosophical debates around the inherit value of human life and self determination. But I also think that it is generally understood that modern democracy requires an agreement that all human life has value, so the debate is unnecessary in the venue.
|
I have no issue calling the ISIS shitbags who behead people animals. Child rapists are animals. I think there are things that humans can do that delegitimize their humanity. When we throw someone in a cage, we are saying they are a different type of human. The idea of dehumanizing people is already an accepted process. It is just a matter of what sorts of things bring us down that road.
|
The Supreme court has just dealt a blow to class action lawsuits against large employers. It is hard to tell how much of an impact this will have labor going forward, but the it shows that the conservative plan of stacking judges and paralyzing congress has paid off over the last two decades. But maybe this will push people back to realizing why everyone was part of a union in the past, before the era of class action lawsuits.
|
On May 22 2018 02:07 Mohdoo wrote:
I have no issue calling the ISIS shitbags who behead people animals. Child rapists are animals. I think there are things that humans can do that delegitimize their humanity. When we throw someone in a cage, we are saying they are a different type of human. The idea of dehumanizing people is already an accepted process. It is just a matter of what sorts of things bring us down that road.
Letting humanity off the semantic hook because it feels right to set atrocity apart from the rosier aspects of what humans are capable of is not a good idea, particularly when set against the backdrop of what has occurred when folks have done that before.
And no, none of your examples actually support your conclusion, the "throwing in cages" process is heavily circumscribed with protections that acknowledge some fundamental aspects of humanity, child rapists included. This is also the case with rules of engagement and the treatment of enemy combatants.
And yeah, that Supreme Court decision is awful shit, time to start awaring folks on how important it is that we amend the FAA.
|
On May 22 2018 00:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 23:23 Dan HH wrote:On May 21 2018 02:40 IgnE wrote:On May 21 2018 00:31 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2018 00:05 IgnE wrote:On May 20 2018 22:47 Dan HH wrote:On May 19 2018 02:32 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2018 02:18 IgnE wrote:On May 19 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On May 19 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
is it not the possibility of radical evil that is the sine qua non of "human" itself? That seems maybe a touch cynical... on the contrary; the cynical view is to say that humans cannot choose evil (and hence cannot choose good): "they (we?) are just animals, determined in every way by the totality of things" Cynicism on a gradient, rather than being binary. A touch of cynicism is measurably less than the cynicism of(created by?) that deterministic view of human nature. I don't see how it's cynical to think that humans are not magically exempt from causality. Is the universe itself magically exempt from causality? If not, what caused it? I don’t know, and that’s perfectly acceptable as answers go. Ignorance is far better than a bad answer. or we can say, like Kant, that causality is properly restricted to the realm of phenomena and so does not apply to the totality of the universe, its existence as such. and we can also say that consciousness is a hard problem It's been almost 10 years since I read anything by him but I'm not aware of him suggesting that. Kant's main premise for reality as it is was that no properties can be assigned to it with any certainty because we are unable to perceive it as it is, this should include any relationship it may or may not have with causality. For example if time were an abstraction of entropy, what's to stop causality being an abstraction of a property of entropy? Regardless, going back to accountability, our society doesn't explain that by denying that time and space are real or that real knowledge is possible, but it passively accepts that the distinction between free will and the perfect illusion of free will is not relevant. Personally I find that drawing the line for agency right below us is far more anthropocentric than thinking we can derive some definite laws of nature from observation with our limited tools. causality is something properly restricted to phenomena, like entropy. biff points out the Kantian antinomies in the post above yours. what if time were an abstraction of entropy and causality were an abstraction of a property of entropy? what would that tell us about whether the universe was caused or what caused the universe?
How is 'properly restricting' something from the unknowable (your premise, not mine - or rather Kant's) not akin to assigning it properties based on thin air? That was the point of the first paragraph, not solving the problem of the origin of matter.
On May 21 2018 23:37 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 18:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 21 2018 02:40 IgnE wrote:On May 21 2018 00:31 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2018 00:05 IgnE wrote:On May 20 2018 22:47 Dan HH wrote:On May 19 2018 02:32 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2018 02:18 IgnE wrote:On May 19 2018 02:09 iamthedave wrote:On May 19 2018 01:40 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
is it not the possibility of radical evil that is the sine qua non of "human" itself? That seems maybe a touch cynical... on the contrary; the cynical view is to say that humans cannot choose evil (and hence cannot choose good): "they (we?) are just animals, determined in every way by the totality of things" Cynicism on a gradient, rather than being binary. A touch of cynicism is measurably less than the cynicism of(created by?) that deterministic view of human nature. I don't see how it's cynical to think that humans are not magically exempt from causality. Is the universe itself magically exempt from causality? If not, what caused it? I don’t know, and that’s perfectly acceptable as answers go. Ignorance is far better than a bad answer. or we can say, like Kant, that causality is properly restricted to the realm of phenomena and so does not apply to the totality of the universe, its existence as such. and we can also say that consciousness is a hard problem And that was before physicists discovered that the universe is probabilistic as soon as you go small enough. That being said good old Immanuel’s main contribution is to place old fashioned metaphysical problems such as, precisely, the question of free will and determinism out of reach of human reason. Hell, in Critique of Pure reason, the chapter « The antinomy of pure reason » actually demonstrates with extreme certainty both the thesis: « There are in the world causes through freedom » and antithesis: « There is no freedom, but all is nature » in order to demonstrate that we have no clue and never will. I'm not sold on the idea that probabilistic laws are necessarily a problem for determinism in the philosophical sense (certainly, by the mathematical definition, they aren't deterministic, but mathematical determinism isn't trying to discuss free will). Even if the way our brains work is almost entirely a product of at least slightly random processes, I don't think that gives us any more control, it just makes our future thoughts, circumstances and actions unknowable, even in theory given perfect at-the-time information and computation. Although these are ramblings at best.
I can only agree that particle randomness having a role in our thoughts doesn't seem any more or less free than an uninterrupted progression of states. It's difficult to find a niche for free will without having to resort to transcendental speculation. As for the problems of determinism, while I'm not convinced of hard determinism, I don't find it incompatible with loss of information and inaccessible information. It's not necessary for perfect prediction and retrodiction to be possible for things to be inevitable.
|
Ok, now the White House just put up a press release called "What you need to know about the Violent Animals of MS-13". And I am sure the influence of the White House calling MS-13 members animals will only impact MS 13 members and not every vaguely Hispanic person in the US.
Especially when two border patrol agents detained two US citizens for speaking Spanish. In Montana, that state that totally boarders a bunch of Spanish speaking countries.
Edit: farvacola - yeah, that thing is some hot shit. Its not like we didn't see this coming. People need to give up on the idea that the courts or Congress are going to protect workers rights for the next 10-20 years. Until the shape of US politics change, there is no reason expect anything but a slow eroding of workers rights.
|
On May 22 2018 02:10 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/998579985584664576The Supreme court has just dealt a blow to class action lawsuits against large employers. It is hard to tell how much of an impact this will have labor going forward, but the it shows that the conservative plan of stacking judges and paralyzing congress has paid off over the last two decades. But maybe this will push people back to realizing why everyone was part of a union in the past, before the era of class action lawsuits.
I'd be interested to read a good analysis of the legal fineries of the case if anyone comes across one.
|
The case doesn't implicate anything complicated, it's basically a prototypical bit of conservative jurisprudence that does everything it can to take the courts out of the equation whenever folks want to contest the actions of an employer. As is the case with most arbitration cases, the emphasis is on the FAA and a stilted take on separation of powers. It's not a long decision, take a look for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
