|
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 |
It is also the class conservative ruling that hinges on the idea that the worker is not being deprived of due process because they can bring the claim by themselves. It ignores the fact that class action lawsuits were created to address the disproportionate amount of power and resources larger employers have compared to one of their employees.
But again, class action lawsuits and collective bargaining might be loathed by conservatives, but they were remedies partly created to bypass the need for dramatic actions like workers strikes. Deal with the problem at the bargaining table or through the court system, rather than impact the day to day operation of the company. The success of the teacher’s strikes arrived just in time.
|
On May 22 2018 02:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I think any time someone is imprisoned for more than 5 years, we are assuming some level of non-humanity. The effects of long term imprisonment could be compared to death.
|
Even if your 5 years or more line in the sand figured as a reasonable boundary, you're still ignoring what goes into the process of adjudging guilt in the first place and it's there that regard for others as human serves perhaps its most important function. Once you cross into "they're animals, they don't deserve process" territory, you are not in good historical company.
And to the extent that long-term imprisonment without a marked attempt at rehabilitation constitutes inhumane treatment, you've just identified one of the components of our justice system most open to justifiable criticism imo.
|
On May 22 2018 02:26 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 00:55 IgnE wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 23:37 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
causality is a property of phenomena, or appearance. thats entirely the point. we cannot speak of causality beyond appearance according to Kant (and others obviously). my understanding was that you were the one trying to impart properties "out of thin air" towards the unknowable (ie the universe in its totality).
but to go on, since consciousness is constitutively split, we cannot "see" or access our unconscious, the "i think" is split from the (objective) "thing that thinks;" we cannot speak of causality for the thinking subject. to do so would be to assign properties out of thin air
|
And that's part of why Descartes' cogito is, in a sense, false; "I think, therefore I am" should actually figure as "I think, therefore I think that I am" :D
|
Unrelated note:
My ban period has expired but I'm still unable to send PMs. Can some mod look into that for me plz?
|
On May 22 2018 03:09 farvacola wrote:
Even if your 5 years or more line in the sand figured as a reasonable boundary, you're still ignoring what goes into the process of adjudging guilt in the first place and it's there that regard for others as human serves perhaps its most important function. Once you cross into "they're animals, they don't deserve process" territory, you are not in good historical company.
And to the extent that long-term imprisonment without a marked attempt at rehabilitation constitutes inhumane treatment, you've just identified one of the components of our justice system most open to justifiable criticism imo.
I'm not saying animals don't deserve process. I am just pointing out that we already regularly dehumanize people when we decide to imprison them for lengths of time that somewhat amount to death. I do not think this is a bad practice. Until we have a better system of rehabilitation, it is still a greater good decision to keep certain types of people out of the general population. I'm not going to advocate for letting a murderer out of prison for some bullshit "but now we're the bad guys" bullshit.
This is just a topic I have been pondering lately. Portland is trying to make it so that property owners aren't allowed to do background checks on tenants and it is raising a lot questions about what it means to be in prison and what impacts it should have on someone's life after they are out of prison and how long they should even be in prison. And what kind of impacts we should be allowing for as a result of prison. It is a difficult question to answer.
|
On May 22 2018 03:15 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 02:26 Dan HH wrote:On May 22 2018 00:55 IgnE wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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:
[quote]
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. causality is a property of phenomena, or appearance. thats entirely the point. we cannot speak of causality beyond appearance according to Kant (and others obviously). my understanding was that you were the one trying to impart properties "out of thin air" towards the unknowable (ie the universe in its totality). but to go on, since consciousness is constitutively split, we cannot "see" or access our unconscious, the "i think" is split from the (objective) "thing that thinks" we cannot speak of causality for the thinking subject. to do so would be to assign properties out of thin air
You do not see how circular that is? We cannot speak of causality of the thing in itself because we cannot speak of causality beyond appearances. And what is beyond appearances? Things in themselves. And why is it not a possibility for a property of phenomena to have any relationship with things in themselves? Because someone says so, after establishing that they cannot say anything about it.
And I'm still skeptical that they even said that. My understanding was that Kant thought causality can neither be proven or disproven. I guess you could express that with 'we cannot speak of..' but not by claiming it definitely can't be a property of or related to 'the universe in its totality'.
|
On May 22 2018 03:15 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 02:26 Dan HH wrote:On May 22 2018 00:55 IgnE wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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:
[quote]
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. causality is a property of phenomena, or appearance. thats entirely the point. we cannot speak of causality beyond appearance according to Kant (and others obviously). my understanding was that you were the one trying to impart properties "out of thin air" towards the unknowable (ie the universe in its totality). but to go on, since consciousness is constitutively split, we cannot "see" or access our unconscious, the "i think" is split from the (objective) "thing that thinks" we cannot speak of causality for the thinking subject. to do so would be to assign properties out of thin air
Only if you're a dualist at heart and think that the I that cogits is something more than the sum of its parts (edited for punnyness). If instead you think that the same biological processes that lead a being to think of itself as an I are the same as this that "cause" consciousness (which subsequently is a gradient and not an on/off switch) then why we have consciousness is just as explainable as why a tomato is red.
|
On May 22 2018 03:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 03:09 farvacola wrote:
Even if your 5 years or more line in the sand figured as a reasonable boundary, you're still ignoring what goes into the process of adjudging guilt in the first place and it's there that regard for others as human serves perhaps its most important function. Once you cross into "they're animals, they don't deserve process" territory, you are not in good historical company.
And to the extent that long-term imprisonment without a marked attempt at rehabilitation constitutes inhumane treatment, you've just identified one of the components of our justice system most open to justifiable criticism imo. I'm not saying animals don't deserve process. I am just pointing out that we already regularly dehumanize people when we decide to imprison them for lengths of time that somewhat amount to death. I do not think this is a bad practice. Until we have a better system of rehabilitation, it is still a greater good decision to keep certain types of people out of the general population. I'm not going to advocate for letting a murderer out of prison for some bullshit "but now we're the bad guys" bullshit. This is just a topic I have been pondering lately. Portland is trying to make it so that property owners aren't allowed to do background checks on tenants and it is raising a lot questions about what it means to be in prison and what impacts it should have on someone's life after they are out of prison and how long they should even be in prison. And what kind of impacts we should be allowing for as a result of prison. It is a difficult question to answer.
It depends on how CORI checks work in your state. MA reworked their system recently because it didn’t differentiate being charged and being convicted. Those are two vastly different things. So some state systems are unfair to renters and employees. Really, most criminal records systems are pretty shit and not designed to be fair to the people charged with crimes.
If your state has one of those bad systems, Portland does not have the power to fix it by itself. The law they are attempting to pass is likely not well written, but it could lead to state having to address the underlying problem.
|
|
|
Sex offenders are required to self report. But that is the exact dumb defense a landlord would claim is a reason they need to do criminal records searches on everyone they rent to. They don’t really care, but want to be able to rely on the criminal records search to deny renters they don’t want for other reasons. Like the renters have children or are part of a minority group the landlord doesn’t like.
|
We imprison them because they are human. Otherwise we would just "put them down" them like dogs. That's why we don't call humans "animals". ISIS shitbags are humans. Child rapists are humans. We may deplore them, but they are still humans. But that's beside the point of that the president of USA, who appears to be specifically dehumnaising targeting a group. We've already seen what happens in the modern age when a group of people are deplored as animals and are slaughtered as such. Why would anyone defend USA going down that route again? We (by that I assume that includes everyone in this thread) don't want to see that happening ever again.
|
Trump called Rosenstein to the White House today and to try and force him to release all the information on the FBI an informant to the House. This is the same group of people who leak documents within 24 hours of them being provided to them. This is a week after the Senate offered full support to the current investigation.
|
|
|
If all landlords deny housing to ex-convicts, where are ex-convicts supposed to live? Coming from a guy who had helped landlords evict quite a few people, not really seeing a lot of problems with that law. Violent crimes happen, but also carry long sentences that are often extended if the person continues to be violent in prison. When those sentences are over, the ex-criminal has a right be able to purchase shelter. Landlords are, from my experience, entitled assholes who rail against anything that would limit their ability to deny renters at their whim. They would love the option to evict people at will, without notice, if they could have it.
And that oped makes the classic mistake of claiming bureaucrats don’t any skin in the game. It is their ass if they can’t address homelessness in their city.
edit: Now you see, that is how it is done. The law was poorly written, which is often the case with these city ordinances. But the problem still exists for ex-criminals.
|
On May 22 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:
If all landlords deny housing to ex-convicts, where are ex-convicts supposed to live? Coming from a guy who had helped landlords evict quite a few people, not really seeing a lot of problems with that law. Violent crimes happen, but also carry long sentences that are often extended if the person continues to be violent in prison. When those sentences are over, the ex-criminal has a right be able to purchase shelter. Landlords are, from my experience, entitled assholes who rail against anything that would limit their ability to deny renters at their whim. They would love the option to evict people at will, without notice, if they could have it.
And that oped makes the classic mistake of claiming bureaucrats don’t any skin in the game. It is their ass if they can’t address homelessness in their city.
edit: Now you see, that is how it is done. The law was poorly written, which is often the case with these city ordinances. But the problem still exists for ex-criminals.
We agree. That being said, nightmare tennants *do* happen. They ate incredibly expensive. My mom tents rooms in her house and she's had a few horror stories. But the fact remains that racial bias needs to be eliminated and convicts do indeed need places to live.
|
On May 22 2018 04:02 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 03:15 IgnE wrote:On May 22 2018 02:26 Dan HH wrote:On May 22 2018 00:55 IgnE wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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:
[quote]
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. causality is a property of phenomena, or appearance. thats entirely the point. we cannot speak of causality beyond appearance according to Kant (and others obviously). my understanding was that you were the one trying to impart properties "out of thin air" towards the unknowable (ie the universe in its totality). but to go on, since consciousness is constitutively split, we cannot "see" or access our unconscious, the "i think" is split from the (objective) "thing that thinks" we cannot speak of causality for the thinking subject. to do so would be to assign properties out of thin air You do not see how circular that is? We cannot speak of causality of the thing in itself because we cannot speak of causality beyond appearances. And what is beyond appearances? Things in themselves. And why is it not a possibility for a property of phenomena to have any relationship with things in themselves? Because someone says so, after establishing that they cannot say anything about it. And I'm still skeptical that they even said that. My understanding was that Kant thought causality can neither be proven or disproven. I guess you could express that with 'we cannot speak of..' but not by claiming it definitely can't be a property of or related to 'the universe in its totality'.
it's not circular. your second paragraph is closer to the point, but Biff already pointed out where Kant talks about this and you can read the wiki if you prefer a summary.
i like this little essay, if you still feel 'skeptical'
What is a Noumenon? Ask any (philosophy) person on the street, and you’ll no doubt hear how Kant divided the world into the phenomenon and noumenon, and that we can’t know anything about the noumenon, but have to resign ourselves to dealing with phenomenon, things in themselves vs appearances, etc etc.
But even in this dismissive simplification an inconsistency has already emerged. How could have Kant divided the world into two parts and then gone on, with a perfectly straight face, to deny that we could have any knowledge of the second part? Isn’t the very division itself, and the agnostic claim about unknowability, presenting us with knowledge of what is unknowable? That is, hasn’t Kant, at the outset, committed a self-referential contradiction that any philosophy undergrad could spot with a blindfold on: “I know that the noumenon is unknowable”.
The foolish thing would be to think that Kant has missed something so fundamental . . . We would be sabotaged right out of the gate if we didn’t put to rest a very common way of talking about the noumenon that is, nonetheless, obviously flawed. That is the noumenon as cause of the phenomenon.
@acrofales
you would call hegel a dualist? or a phenomenologist like merleau-ponty?
|
On May 22 2018 06:21 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:
If all landlords deny housing to ex-convicts, where are ex-convicts supposed to live? Coming from a guy who had helped landlords evict quite a few people, not really seeing a lot of problems with that law. Violent crimes happen, but also carry long sentences that are often extended if the person continues to be violent in prison. When those sentences are over, the ex-criminal has a right be able to purchase shelter. Landlords are, from my experience, entitled assholes who rail against anything that would limit their ability to deny renters at their whim. They would love the option to evict people at will, without notice, if they could have it.
And that oped makes the classic mistake of claiming bureaucrats don’t any skin in the game. It is their ass if they can’t address homelessness in their city.
edit: Now you see, that is how it is done. The law was poorly written, which is often the case with these city ordinances. But the problem still exists for ex-criminals. We agree. That being said, nightmare tennants *do* happen. They ate incredibly expensive. My mom tents rooms in her house and she's had a few horror stories. But the fact remains that racial bias needs to be eliminated and convicts do indeed need places to live.
I've been part of building many a case against nightmare tenants. The professional landlords that treated it like a contract did just fine. The smaller landlords who had rented this one room for years and then suddenly had to deal with a nightmare tenant normally took it in the teeth.
And then there were the landlords that show up saying: "We have received like 4 letters from the AG's office about my rental add. They say I have to rent to families, but I don't want children ruining the apartment."
|
On May 22 2018 06:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 04:02 Dan HH wrote:On May 22 2018 03:15 IgnE wrote:On May 22 2018 02:26 Dan HH wrote:On May 22 2018 00:55 IgnE wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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:
[quote]
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. causality is a property of phenomena, or appearance. thats entirely the point. we cannot speak of causality beyond appearance according to Kant (and others obviously). my understanding was that you were the one trying to impart properties "out of thin air" towards the unknowable (ie the universe in its totality). but to go on, since consciousness is constitutively split, we cannot "see" or access our unconscious, the "i think" is split from the (objective) "thing that thinks" we cannot speak of causality for the thinking subject. to do so would be to assign properties out of thin air You do not see how circular that is? We cannot speak of causality of the thing in itself because we cannot speak of causality beyond appearances. And what is beyond appearances? Things in themselves. And why is it not a possibility for a property of phenomena to have any relationship with things in themselves? Because someone says so, after establishing that they cannot say anything about it. And I'm still skeptical that they even said that. My understanding was that Kant thought causality can neither be proven or disproven. I guess you could express that with 'we cannot speak of..' but not by claiming it definitely can't be a property of or related to 'the universe in its totality'. it's not circular. your second paragraph is closer to the point, but Biff already pointed out where Kant talks about this and you can read the wiki if you prefer a summary. i like this little essay, if you still feel 'skeptical' Show nested quote + What is a Noumenon? Ask any (philosophy) person on the street, and you’ll no doubt hear how Kant divided the world into the phenomenon and noumenon, and that we can’t know anything about the noumenon, but have to resign ourselves to dealing with phenomenon, things in themselves vs appearances, etc etc.
But even in this dismissive simplification an inconsistency has already emerged. How could have Kant divided the world into two parts and then gone on, with a perfectly straight face, to deny that we could have any knowledge of the second part? Isn’t the very division itself, and the agnostic claim about unknowability, presenting us with knowledge of what is unknowable? That is, hasn’t Kant, at the outset, committed a self-referential contradiction that any philosophy undergrad could spot with a blindfold on: “I know that the noumenon is unknowable”.
The foolish thing would be to think that Kant has missed something so fundamental . . . We would be sabotaged right out of the gate if we didn’t put to rest a very common way of talking about the noumenon that is, nonetheless, obviously flawed. That is the noumenon as cause of the phenomenon. @acrofales you would call hegel a dualist? or a phenomenologist like merleau-ponty?
Neither. Not that I find Hegel's philosophy of mind particularly useful, but he applies his same metaphysical idealism to the problem of Cartesian dualism, and explains it all away in such a woolly manner that it's quite clear he rejects this dualism, but isn't able to offer anything useful to replace it. Merleau-ponty's phenomenology is firmly rooted in existentialism (or even physicalism), which Hegel also rejected.
I have to admit that my professors disliked Hegel, and I have never really found any reason to delve into it myself, so I may be doing him an injustice, so enlighten me 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
