Heaven sent the promised land
Looks alright from where I stand
'Cause I'm the man on the outside lookin' in
Waiting on the first step
Show me where the key is kept
Point me down the right line because it's time
To let me in
From the cold
Turn my lead
'Cause there's a chill wind blowin' in my soul
And I think I'm growing old
Flash the readies
Wot's uh, the deal?
Gotta make it to the next meal
Gotta keep up with the turning of
Mile after mile
Stone after stone
You turn to speak, but you're alone
A million miles from home, you're on your own
So let me in
From the cold
Turn my lead
'Cause there's a chill wind blowin' in my soul
And I think I'm growing old
Fire bright by candlelight
With her by my side
If she prefers, we will never stir
Someone said, "The Promised Land!"
So I grabbed it with both hands
Now I'm the man on the inside lookin' out
Hear me shout,
"Come on in!
Wot's the news?
Where ya been?"
'Cause there's no wind left in my soul
And I've grown old
- Roger Waters
clenchedfist00: "We may call lilac a reddish-whitish-blue or brown a blackish-reddish-yellow -- but we cannot call white a yellowish-reddish-greenish-blue, or the like."
- Wittgenstein, "Remarks on Color"
clenchedfist00 in reply to theKnaveofNevermore: I actually was in a perfectly normal mood when this came onto my youtube, and I was in a more positive mood after I listened to it ... for me it isn't about the lyrics but the texture, the impressionistic feel of it ... despite the lyrics, of which I can only hear the word "suicide" over and over again, I just kinda ignored that, it seemed like overly melodramatic goth stuff, but the music was great
I also find rain to be joyful, where most people find it melancholy
When I say that someone did something morally wrong, I don't mean to say that I dislike it. To take something that isn't mine may in fact be appealing to me (I may like it), and yet I may still say that it's wrong. Furthermore, disliking something need not carry with it any requirement that others feel the same way - I can dislike stormy weather without thinking that, if you like it, you are in any sort of error. But a moral judgment seems to be, by its nature, binding on all people. If I say stealing is wrong, I mean that anyone who steals is doing something wrong. So I am positing a rule that I intend to apply to everyone.
But attempts to make explicit even a single moral rule have generally revealed that we couldn't assent to these rules as applying in every case - even stealing seems to sit in a different light if you consider Robin Hood scenarios or those in which stealing a weapon may prevent a massacre. And attempts to gather together all the rules that we seem to assent to in a form that, made explicit, we could agree with has almost certainly, so far, failed. If this seems unbelievable, consider that the most Herculean attempt to do this in contemporary moral philosophy is probably that of the British philosopher Derek Parfit, who "suggests that the three most prominent categories of views in moral philosophy—Kantian deontology, consequentalism, and contractarianism—ultimately converge on the same answers to moral questions." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Parfit)
What am I doing, then, when I make a moral judgment? How can I posit a universal rule that I don't agree with? Consider analogous cases in which I do this, e.g. traffic laws that say "1 hour parking" that are not enforced on Sundays (with no sign stating this). Consider that any rule at a workplace likely has exceptions, as do rules set down by a parent for children to follow, rules of a tournament or competition, etc. Many rules are indeed posited (or at least stated and intended to be followed) without agreeing that they hold in every case without exception.
Think of the meaning of a moral statement in terms of what the speaker intends to happen - a statement as an action with a certain intention. If I say "Stealing is wrong," my intent is that you will agree with me, as opposed to my intent in saying "Tulips are beautiful." (I may feign disagreement if you say they aren't, but my "disagreement" will not carry with it personal offense, a hesitation concerning how I feel about you, etc) And "agreeing" here means mutual commitment to a set of actions. I have a certain intuitive sense of disgust with at least most of the cases of stealing that I have witnessed or imagined. I express this disgust to you, assuming or hoping that you have the same disgust and intending (or, usually, reaffirming) that we are united in avoiding such actions. The "rule" belongs to the way in which such intentions are put into words; our analogous cases of traffic laws, etc. are also cases of an intended commitment to certain behavior expressed as a rule. The rule is functional and utilitarian, not, in a deep sense, logical.
Moral rules have exceptions for the same reason that the rules of a workplace have exceptions: the exceptional situations do not give us the same intuitive feeling or sense that the original set of situations we had in mind do. This does not invalidate the original intention but simply illuminates that the intention did not really have to do with these exceptional cases in the first place.
View all 26 posts
theKnaveofNevermore: i think i have made my position, my politics, abundantly clear in my time here punch, and i am a card carrying liberal, who has never touched a gun in his life, and desires it not, i do not want to live in a world where by necessity i own an arsenal and a years worth of stored food down in the bunker, i assure you most liberals do not live like this, we do not generally believe the entire world is out to get us, and war, not only a inevitability, by right wisdom, also a necessity. the united states is not under siege by anyone, ( never mind north korea for the sake of this treatise i implore you ) you see, we lefties implore quite a bit. which is why the right hates us, please and thank you are unknown in the murcan lexicon. okay, that was unnecessarily mean, forgive me, ah, another left wing ploy, contrition. see we get worse and worse by the second. lol, but i would also not suggest we are all just a bunch of long haired hippy jesus freaks all looking to partake in gods green bounty, smoke em if you got em. no sir. what we are in fact dealing with are the extremists at both ends staring down the barrel at one another with what constitutes the vast majority caught helplessly, and quite voicelessly i might add, in the middle. but we all ready know from past historical evidence, that extremists though they be a small portion of any given society, are capable of causing a disproportionate amount of chaos, and we all need to be mindful of that. really, when the extremists do battle it,s always the moderates that get their noses bloodied. so, we must be aware. i think you took my position personally punch, not intended as so, not an attack on the people of the midwest, who wish no harm on anyone, and just desire a society that they can depend upon, people need to know the money in their pockets will be worth tomorrow what it was yesterday, simple as that. personally i have felt nothing but unease since trump, perhaps baseless fear of an unknown quantity, but i can't say even this, i have been aware of trump for decades, he is a personality and a media darling since the mid 80,s they made his foibles as well known as his fortune, he did not give a lick what the press had to say, he thrived on the publicity, anyway, i,ve lost my thread, it,s too late and i,m too baked for this, yes another left wing foible, we,re all reprobates. cheers.
Punchy: first of all Knave you must understand that the "right" does not "hate" you; however the liberals sure do seem to hold great hate in their hearts for the non...look at posts and read how it goes down...you seem to take things a step too far...as a non liberal, though very liberal in many aspects...I'm not storing food...I do not hoard guns, etc., etc. These types of generalities on both sides of the fence are the problem...it used to and still should be a scenario wherein folks could "discuss" their different opinions and learn from one another a different point of view with respect that there may not be agreement in all arenas...these days...one disagress with a liberal and asap in chats comes the name calling...you idiot...you moron...how can you not see you stupid fuck, etc...I don't understand this behavior on any level. I don't think too many folk can really admire Trump...he was deemed the lesser of two evils and BELIEVE me, Hillary was worse...For you Bernie folk, remember what she did to him and it was proven and not a blasted thing was done about it...shame, shame...But okay...we don't like Trump...that being said the guy couldn't even pass a fart from the get go without our media finding twenty difference ways to discredit his passing gas...this election forward until major change in thinking occurs...enough is enough...we no longer have news...we have 24/7 speculation and histeria building...Trump hasn't been given a chance at all and I'm sick of hearing about his foibles, especially given those of Obama...crikey folks...give it a rest and just support your country...We seem to now live in a society wherein the first thing we need to do is tear apart the other guy first...sounds kinda Middle Eastern to me. I could go on but will stop...the end.
View all 6 posts
theKnaveofNevermore: i would no doubt find myself in the same situation clench, i talk a good game about being liberal minded, but i,m actually pretty conservative. i hold loyalty in high regard, but i hold true to the left wing idealism that we are our brothers keepers and no one need die simply because that have for what ever reason fallen on hard times, no one should be turned away from a hospital just because their credit cards are defunct. the right wing back lash is usually, 'why don't you just give everything you own away', i actually got into it on facebook with somebody, discussing that very topic, i did not give a vow of poverty, but i do what i can. right now where i live there is a heated debate going on concerning how much responsibility should be placed on the shoulders of police regarding people suffering from drug over doses on the streets, we have a huge opioid problem and people are dying. however, they have developed a vaccine, that can with one injection reverse the effects of the overdoes and save the persons life. but people are fighting this, firstly there are those who feel that druggies should all just hurry up and die, being a unneeded burden to society, then there are those who cloak that sentiment in a veil of BS arguing that the police are not required to be social worker,s and that carrying medicine that can save a life would take away from their role as enforcer. ridiculous really, carrying a vaccine, for such an emergency would no more make a cop a social working than carrying the gun makes him an executioner. ( though i think black lives matter would argue that differently. ) i,m likely more middle of the road about most things, but i do lean significantly right or left on specific issues. like most people.
View all 7 posts
clenchedfist00: incidentally so far away we are from the "spirit" of the law instead of the letter, that many believers think the 10 commandments can apply to us, all of them
it might be easier for a nonbeliever to tease out their profundity than a believer
hey i have an idea, atheist bible study
clenchedfist00: "There's never enough time to do what needs to be done; life never goes according to plan."
This statement may be intended by the speaker to insinuate this one as well: "Reality is not set up in a way such that human plans have any guarantee, or even a reasonable chance of working out. Reality does not have us in mind; so our plans are somewhat hopeless, feeble, vain attempts to make reality conform to our desires."
If that is what is insinuated then it is nonsensical - for what is a plan if it is not the attempt to make disorganized phenomena organized? (Disorganized with respect to the achievement of a particular goal.) If the phenomena of our world were already organized in ways that made achieving our goals an efficient process, there would be no use for a plan at all. So a plan assumes a world that does not have me in mind; hence there can be no such thing as a plan that is vain and hopeless by virtue of the fact that the world does not have me in mind. Without absurdity there could be no plans.
View all 4 posts
Robbly_Wob: Hey Fist! How's it going mate? All good here, slowly recovering, 51 days sober they say you get your mind back after 90 days, almost there. Thought I'd post here because we're it's hard to catch you online with the time difference.. Was looking at a couple of the Gettier problems, it seems he gives examples in which the justification is wrong but something implied by the justification is right, so the conditions are satisfied, but the proposition shouldn't qualify as knowledge...would love to hear why the Gettier problems are inconsistent when you have some free time
View all 22 posts
Robbly_Wob: Hey man, been a bit busy finalising my ontology article, wont be long before I send it to be published, fingers crossed!
Regarding JTB, the JTB definition was accepted for a long time, what may differ from person to person is the level of justification required....however Gettier's cases are accepted worldwide....The more I think about it, the more it seems obvious that there are problems with the way JTB study is conducted...and case 1 implies that it would be sufficient justification that the boss had assured Smith that Jones was going to get the job, and so if this became true, then Smith knew that Jones was going to get the job...I think there are problems with this...Bearing in mind that it is the commonly accepted definition of the word that we concern ourselves with (as you pointed out in your previous message) I've surveyed over 6000 people and they all said that they would not know something whose truth is based on future events, they also said that they could not know something based on somebody elses word. You can have a good feeling, be 99% sure, but to know means that you are 100% sure. All epistemologists accepted this though, which seems strange to me.
The structure of the Gettier cases still poses a valid problem though, ie: you could construct one that didn't encounter the problems I raised.
But it seems that the justification condition needs serious attention.
clenchedfist00 in reply to Robbly_Wob: You're submitting an article on ontology? Wow ... what's the topic or thesis specifically, if I may ask?
Rob your cognitive powers have become so evident since sobriety that I am honestly amazed; I knew you had hidden intelligence, but not quite this much. I'm going to have to respond to your comments when I have time to sit down at the computer by myself and give it serious thought. But, as I'm sure you're aware, there is a plethora of issues surrounding the Gettier cases, mostly epistemological, and discussing all of them in depth would be impractical. I try to imply and insinuate my position on these issues when I write on here, but I don't do a very good job at it. I think I usually achieve obscurity and ambiguity when what I want is succinct and perspicuous summary.
One thing I'll say right now is that it is indeed the majority opinion nowadays to accept the Gettier cases; what interests me here is partially the thrill of challenging accepted opinion. But the other part is that I just do genuinely think Gettier failed to provide counterexamples. If I can be shown differently, I would be overjoyed. There's nothing more instructive than having a position you firmly hold proven wrong. In fact I often challenge accepted opinion in the hope of being refuted to my own satisfaction.
View all 19 posts
theKnaveofNevermore: sadly this comes as no surprise, the frightening percentage of americans who can not find their own home towns on a globe is indictment enough of the woeful state of the education system. but it is believed in this day and age, where in most everyone will have access to the information they need in the form of siri ( or a siri alternative) and so being taught certain things in school is a redundancy and a waste of schooling time and resources. like knowing how to write. i mean literally with a pen. actually it,s been so long since i lifted a pen i might have actually forgotten how to myself. hey, if i had a smart phone with a siri app, i would love if it sounded like arnold the terminator. siri, where is north korea, ' that information is classified, we are in a potential state of war, i project a 85% probability of total mission failure, i have booked you a room in the nearest boomshelter facility, hasta la vista meat bag' , gee thanks siri.
View all 5 posts
theKnaveofNevermore: we can not put every thought down on paper for permanent record, who has the time. but how much of philosophy is for ones own self, and how much is for the purpose of enlightening others, assuming they are open to being enlightened. damn few in this day and age i wager. but where philosophy fails in the minds of many is unlike religion it creates more questions than it answers. people want quick resolution, a neat bow on top of a harmonious solution that will bring peace to the heart and mind. philosophy offers only further possibilities and bottomless intangibles that while being fascinating to those who understand that life and the riddles of the universe are not means to an end but only the very start of any given journey. religion conversely offers an end game to the believers. patients being rewarded and faith being a means to an end.
"But this is not an explanation in any normal sense. It is not an explanation in the sense that, say, a leaking pipe overhead might be explanation of the puddle on the floor. Say, if you like, that the noises and the sudden chill are explained by the presence of a ghost, but the ghost is introduced to be an explanation -by definition-. It is not as if there were the noises and the rest, and then the ghost were discovered, and then a causal connexion were established between the two. So it could not be, for example, that there was indeed really a ghost present, but that it was nevertheless not responsible for the noises - that it just happened, by coincidence, to be hanging around the place at the time, but was not doing anything - so that the noises remained without explanation. Neither could this happen: that we sense a presence, turn on the light to reveal that there was indeed somebody there, and then be faced with the problem whether our sense of presence was caused by the person we discovered or by a ghost. Ghosts do not stand on the same explanatory level as people, as alternative ways of explaining things. If we have discovered somebody there, then the question of ghosts simply does not arise. We explain phenomena in terms of ghosts only when we have ruled out explanation in other, 'natural' terms. And if somebody says, 'There is a ghost here', he is not forming a hypothesis on the basis of evidence, as he might be if he says, 'There's a man here somewhere'. If that were the case, it would turn the situation back into something ordinary: we would have the phenomena and their cause. But to say, 'There's a ghost here' is to say that it is an -extraordinary- situation. His attitude to what he says is not like the attitude towards a hypothesis; he is not inclined to test, but to run.
And what would count as testing here? What would establish the presence of the ghost, so that 'There's a ghost here' really did give us new, true information? Nothing could count as the discovery of the ghost, except the failure to discover any cause for the noises and the other phenomena."
- Gareth Moore
View all 10 posts
theKnaveofNevermore: no, near as i can tell, no one died in the apartment, it was build in 1973, and for the first several years it was the home of retirees, this local being a quite out of the way burb back in those days, not the hustling and bustling city it is now. 40 years ago this place was all just farm land. interestingly when i moved in in 82ish, the building was still mostly retirees, no kids to speak of, almost no young families, i literally saw no one here at all, and had become convinced i was all alone in the building never seeing anyone, at least for the first several years. now it,s an uproar all the time with people and kids. it,s a very different place. i miss those quiet times, but to answer your question, i have no idea who the man was, i think maybe it was me, if i were to evoke some strange rick and morty multiverse dynamic, a fold in time perhaps, which means i,m going to die in this place an old man, i mean hey why not, dimensional cross rips makes as much sense as ghosts right. anyway, since my ex left, the place has been very quiet. spirits follow her, if this dude was a ghost, he went with her. she had told me there is one who has followed her since she was a teenager, she found him in a closet while visiting a friend, and has become her traveling companion. to say she was a little eccentric would be a dramatic understatement.