How does the philosopher react to artillery shells?

[commonsense]

So the question really is, "How much to you believe that reductional, anti-materialist explanations of material phenomena are credible, given that practically anybody will instinctively act as if they're not."

Good question.

Yes, it is. Another question is: shouldn’t your thinking support your action?

I would put it another way. "If you thinking is not supported by your action, how much do you really believe what you think you believe?"

To be sure, your thinking is deliberate, while your action, in this scenario, is automatic. Still, shouldn’t your involuntary act guide your deliberations?

Well, an involuntary action is more likely to reflect what you actually believe.

It's like the woman who says, "My husband may have hit me, but he's sorry, and I'm sure he'll never do it again," but when he comes home and slams the door, she jumps anyway. What she says she knows is not what she really knows. And her instinct shows what she knows most deeply.

Should it always be the case that our instincts guide our beliefs as well as our acts?

No, because we do have good and bad instincts. Instinct can reveal what we DO believe; it cannot always tell us what we SHOULD believe.

But you're quite right that our instinctual reaction is more likely to reveal what we deeply believe than the stuff we say is.

That's different than saying instinct should dictate action, however.

If someone held a gun to your head and demanded that you must either defend or deny dualism, wouldn’t the circumstances direct your reply?

Sure. But that would be a coerced situation. The great thing about an instinctive reaction is it's not coerced: you can react any way your instinct inclines you.

If philosophy is in any way supposed to help us understand our world, shouldn’t the instinctual inform the intellectual?

Perhaps. But we ought to be circumspect about how it should "inform" the intellectual. It can be revealing of what we are actually believing at the moment; but instincts can't be guaranteed to be right, because deep beliefs can't be guaranteed to be right either, and instincts are, as we said, only revelations of those deepest beliefs.

"Revelations" but not "justifications." Again, I would say instinct tells us what we DO happen to believe at a given time, not always what we OUGHT TO believe. People can be wrong, even instinctively.

We’ll put all the way through.

Now I’m wondering if I have conflated deeply ingrained instincts with deeply held feelings.

The battered woman who proclaims there’s no danger feels afraid of her husband’s behavior and her instinctive reaction to the feeling of being afraid is to cower. Maybe.

On further inspection, I could be splitting hairs in finding a distinction between instinct and feeling.

[Immanuel Can]

On further inspection, I could be splitting hairs in finding a distinction between instinct and feeling.

Perhaps.

But you could also be intuiting a fine distinction that is just somewhat hard to articulate. I'd be interested in seeing what you arrive at, in this regard. It's certainly a provocative thought.

[Sculptor]

On further inspection, I could be splitting hairs in finding a distinction between instinct and feeling.

Not too difficult here.
Instinct are a set of evolved responses to stimuli.
Feelings are the immediate responses to them.

An instinct may result in a feeling, but the feeling whilst motivated by an instinctive response is not itself an instinct.

[Nick_A]

So you have found yourself at Stalingrad when the Nazis are bombing and invading the city. The morning has been mostly quiet, until a large explosion suddenly goes off nearby. The lieutenant in your company grabs your shirt by the collar and yells into your face: "They are hitting us with artillery! GET BEHIND THAT WALL OR YOU WILL BE TORN TO SHREDS!"

Fortunately, you are a philosopher. Your education affords you many options here that are not available to most people.

What would you do next?
Take cover behind the concrete wall.
Declare that your body is not composed of mere molecules, and that anyone who claims that is just engaging in silly "Reductivist Scientism".
Remind the Lieutenant that he "cannot explain quantum mechanics". Then stand there with a smug smile on your face.
Say that David Chalmers showed that your consciousness cannot be reduced to mere brain functions. Then question the Lieutenant's education level.

First of all you must admit that you are not qualified to make such decisions. Use your phone to locate a local expert on political correctness. Progressive schools are filled with them. Call them and explain your situation to the resident PhD. They will tell you the politically correct thing to do.

Make sure you tell them the location of the wall. If the enemy destroys the wall, the falling concrete may damage the local natural environment in which case your PC adviser may suggest you sacrifice yourself to protect the wall by standing in front of it rather than hiding behind it. Leave the decision making to the experts. They are good at telling you what to do as well as telling you where to go.

[Arising_uk]

So you have found yourself at Stalingrad when the Nazis are bombing and invading the city. The morning has been mostly quiet, until a large explosion suddenly goes off nearby. The lieutenant in your company grabs your shirt by the collar and yells into your face: "They are hitting us with artillery! GET BEHIND THAT WALL OR YOU WILL BE TORN TO SHREDS!"

Fortunately, you are a philosopher. Your education affords you many options here that are not available to most people.

What would you do next?
Take cover behind the concrete wall.
Declare that your body is not composed of mere molecules, and that anyone who claims that is just engaging in silly "Reductivist Scientism".
Remind the Lieutenant that he "cannot explain quantum mechanics". Then stand there with a smug smile on your face.
Say that David Chalmers showed that your consciousness cannot be reduced to mere brain functions. Then question the Lieutenant's education level.

First of all you must admit that you are not qualified to make such decisions. Use your phone to locate a local expert on political correctness. Progressive schools are filled with them. Call them and explain your situation to the resident PhD. They will tell you the politically correct thing to do.

Make sure you tell them the location of the wall. If the enemy destroys the wall, the falling concrete may damage the local natural environment in which case your PC adviser may suggest you sacrifice yourself to protect the wall by standing in front of it rather than hiding behind it. Leave the decision making to the experts. They are good at telling you what to do as well as telling you where to go.

Given that this is exactly what you wish to do I find your outrage faux.

[Arising_uk]

Bone spurs should keep you safe.

Well that did seem to work for a certain person.

[Age]

So the question really is, "How much to you believe that reductional, anti-materialist explanations of material phenomena are credible, given that practically anybody will instinctively act as if they're not."

Good question.

Yes, it is. Another question is: shouldn’t your thinking support your action?

I would put it another way. "If you thinking is not supported by your action, how much do you really believe what you think you believe?"

To be sure, your thinking is deliberate, while your action, in this scenario, is automatic. Still, shouldn’t your involuntary act guide your deliberations?

Well, an involuntary action is more likely to reflect what you actually believe.

It's like the woman who says, "My husband may have hit me, but he's sorry, and I'm sure he'll never do it again," but when he comes home and slams the door, she jumps anyway. What she says she knows is not what she really knows. And her instinct shows what she knows most deeply.

Is this something like those who say they know God is real, and that they know they are going to go to heaven after they die but they instinctively fear death and so really they KNOW what thee actual Truth?

Also is this KNOWN Truth actually evidenced by these people's desire AND actions to keep doing all they can to stay ALIVE?

Does the instinct and actions of these people SHOW what they KNOW most deeply?

Should it always be the case that our instincts guide our beliefs as well as our acts?

No, because we do have good and bad instincts. Instinct can reveal what we DO believe; it cannot always tell us what we SHOULD believe.

But you're quite right that our instinctual reaction is more likely to reveal what we deeply believe than the stuff we say is.

That's different than saying instinct should dictate action, however.

If someone held a gun to your head and demanded that you must either defend or deny dualism, wouldn’t the circumstances direct your reply?

Sure. But that would be a coerced situation. The great thing about an instinctive reaction is it's not coerced: you can react any way your instinct inclines you.

If philosophy is in any way supposed to help us understand our world, shouldn’t the instinctual inform the intellectual?

Perhaps. But we ought to be circumspect about how it should "inform" the intellectual. It can be revealing of what we are actually believing at the moment; but instincts can't be guaranteed to be right, because deep beliefs can't be guaranteed to be right either, and instincts are, as we said, only revelations of those deepest beliefs.

"Revelations" but not "justifications." Again, I would say instinct tells us what we DO happen to believe at a given time, not always what we OUGHT TO believe. People can be wrong, even instinctively.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why Nazis? Why not ask what you would do if you were an ordinary Iraqi person going off to work with some of his workmates and you are suddenly being shot at by hooting and yeehawing 'brave' American cretins from the safety of a nearby building.

[Dachshund]

Why Nazis? Why not ask what you would do if you were an ordinary Iraqi person going off to work with some of his workmates and you are suddenly being shot at by hooting and yeehawing 'brave' American cretins from the safety of a nearby building.

Veggie,


American soldiers are trained professionals, they would be unlikely to fire on Iraqi civilians in intentionally.


In combat (in WW II, Vietnam and Iraq) there was no hooting or yeehawing by American troops when they shot and killed the enemy.


In any case, Trump has pledged (just a few days ago) to keep American troops OUT of foreign wars like those that are always raging somewhere among the crazy "sand niggers" (Arab Muslims) in the Middle East, and leave the local retards to shoot the day-lights out of each other as much as they like and for as long as they like. Great idea ! It's basically the "self-cleaning oven principle" - let the shit eliminate itself, don't get your own hand dirty !

BTW, as you are always slagging off America and signing the praises of Muslims, why don't you fuck off out of the West an go live in Iraq with the Shi'ites and Sunnis. Just think, you would be able to soak up their charming Islamic culture to the full, Veggie ! They are very civilized and intelligent people, you know, and they have a tremendous deal of respect for women in particular, especially white ones. The later like YOU) get "special treatment" like a free clitorectomy (performed with a kitchen knife), like having the shit bashed out of them if they don't do their domestic chores well, and like being forced to take it up the bum "on call" (Ouch !! "Anal u Akbar !!"). So if you do go, Veggie, don't forget to pack a few dozen "Voltarol" (pain-killing) suppositories in your rucksack, will you (?); that, and a litre or two of glycerine lubricant !



Regards,



Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)............................................(Beware the dog)

[vegetariantaxidermy]

American soldiers are trained professionals, they would be unlikely to fire on Iraqi civilians in intentionally.

'Trained professional' whats?

How big a deluded moron ARE you exactly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYTxuW2 ... verified=1

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7sJitp1ZUk

You don't give a flying fuck about the murder of Iraqi people, so what about Iraqi puppies then? (and these are 'trained professional' American soldiers).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXa9bj-jqA8

There are plenty more that aren't exactly hard to find.


Some of the worst are the vicious British and American mercenaries employed by 'security' firms (you know, the ones who love to kick down doors or blow out the side of a house instead of just knocking like an actual human being). Fucking arseholes.

I notice you don't say 'with ISIS', since it's the US that created it you dumb fuck.

Imagine unleashing these gigantic kunts on defenceless people.



Eeeuw. I've probably given you an erection posting that

Fucking yanks claim to love free speech so much, yet Julian Assange has been rotting for years, denied his basic human rights, and will probably end up being murdered by the yanks on some trumped up bullshit. And for what? Exercising free speech. The world is definitely getting stupider and stupider. People were far better informed BEFORE the internet, because all the morons use it for is their pathetic (un)social media accounts.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why Nazis? Why not ask what you would do if you were an ordinary Iraqi person going off to work with some of his workmates and you are suddenly being shot at by hooting and yeehawing 'brave' American cretins from the safety of a nearby building.

Veggie,


American soldiers are trained professionals, they would be unlikely to fire on Iraqi civilians in intentionally.


In combat (in WW II, Vietnam and Iraq) there was no hooting or yeehawing by American troops when they shot and killed the enemy.


In any case, Trump has pledged (just a few days ago) to keep American troops OUT of foreign wars like those that are always raging somewhere among the crazy "sand niggers" (Arab Muslims) in the Middle East, and leave the local retards to shoot the day-lights out of each other as much as they like and for as long as they like. Great idea ! It's basically the "self-cleaning oven principle" - let the shit eliminate itself, don't get your own hand dirty !

BTW, as you are always slagging off America and signing the praises of Muslims, why don't you fuck off out of the West an go live in Iraq with the Shi'ites and Sunnis. Just think, you would be able to soak up their charming Islamic culture to the full, Veggie ! They are very civilized and intelligent people, you know, and they have a tremendous deal of respect for women in particular, especially white ones. The later like YOU) get "special treatment" like a free clitorectomy (performed with a kitchen knife), like having the shit bashed out of them if they don't do their domestic chores well, and like being forced to take it up the bum "on call" (Ouch !! "Anal u Akbar !!"). So if you do go, Veggie, don't forget to pack a few dozen "Voltarol" (pain-killing) suppositories in your rucksack, will you (?); that, and a litre or two of glycerine lubricant !



Regards,



Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)............................................(Beware the dog)

Why bother editing your posts. No one reads them anyway

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Speaking of Julian Assange, where are all the PC SJWs (you know, the ones who claim to care so much about humans and justice and tolerance blah blah...). Too busy complaining about Dr Seuss' 'rabid racism' for drawing a Chinese person carrying chopsticks and wearing the sort of clothes Chinese people wore in those days. OMG!!! Talk about fucked up priorities. Their treachery wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that they blame him for the fact that their little pet lost the US election would it? Such wankers.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... inton.html

Fox news. Who would have thought?

Tucker Carlson said even Idi Amin did not get the type of coverage WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange receives. Assange was arrested Thursday at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Carlson said Assange is not sleazier than any journalist in Washington and has broke stories that others would win Pulitzers for.

"Assange’s real sin was preventing Hillary Clinton from becoming president," Carlson explained. "There was a time, not so long ago, when reporters didn’t applaud the arrest of other journalists for publishing information."






"At NBC, when they tell you 'many believe' something, it means they believe it," Carlson said about the network's coverage of Assange.

"The guardians of speech are now its enemies," the FNC host said. "The people charged with policing power are now colluding with it. There’s a reason you see John Brennan on NBC all the time. They’re all on the same team. We’re not saying any of this to defend Julian Assange. We just want to be absolutely clear about who hurts this country more. It’s not him."

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: If you’ve watched the coverage of this story today on television, you likely came away with the understanding that Julian Assange is some form of Russian spy, who is in trouble because he stole classified documents from the United States government. But that’s factually wrong. It’s not true. Saying so isn’t a defense of Assange. We’re not here to promote him, or excuse any number of things he’s said over the years that we disagree with. But just so it’s clear: Whatever his sins, Assange did not steal documents from the US government. He did not hack the DNC’s servers, or break into John Podesta’s gmail account. There is no proof he is working for the Russian government, or ever has. Assange has never been charged with any of that, and wasn’t today, no matter what they tell you.

If you’re upset about the theft of classified documents from the US government, and there’s reason to be, we already know who did it: A 22-year-old Army Private named Bradley Manning, now called Chelsea. In 2013, Manning pleaded guilty to stealing secret material, and got 35 years in prison. A few years later, Barack Obama commuted Manning’s sentence. This allowed Manning to leave jail decades early, go back on TV as a commentator, and run for political office. So if your real concern is America’s national security, you ought to be angry at Barack Obama. And yet, strangely, nobody is.

Instead they’re furious at Julian Assange for printing the documents that other people stole. Quote: "Julian Assange has long been a wicked tool of Vladimir Putin and the Russian intelligence services,” wrote professional moralizer Ben Sasse, who also serves in the US senate. “He deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison.”

Wicked? The rest of his life in prison? Idi Amin ate people, and never faced this kind of scorn in Washington. Not even close. Nor, for the record, was Amin ever extradited. He died at 78 in his own bed, leaving behind 43 loving children. So what’s going on here? A couple of things. First, Julian Assange embarrassed virtually everyone in power. He published documents that undermined the official story on the Iraq War and Afghanistan. He got Debbie Wasserman Schultz fired from the DNC. He humiliated Hillary Clinton, by showing that the Democratic primaries were in fact rigged. Pretty much everyone in Washington has reason to hate Julian Assange. Rather than just admit that — “he made us look like buffoons, so now we’re sending him to prison” — they’re denouncing him as, you guessed it, a Russian agent. Watch Senator Blumenthal explain:

BLUMENTHAL: Justice should come to Julian Assange for his role in Russian meddling in our election and the sooner the better.

Again, no one has ever shown that Assange is a Russian agent. The indictment against him doesn’t say it. It doesn’t mention Russia at all. But that hasn’t stopped virtually every politician in Wasington from repeating Blumenthal’s line, including many Republicans. Robert Mueller nearly killed the Russian collusion hoax. Julian Assange is allowing them to keep it alive.

You’d think journalists would say something about this. Assange is, after all, one of them. What do you call a man who publishes news for a living? Assange is no sleazier than many journalists in Washington. He’s definitely not more anti-American. He’s broken stories the New York Times would have won Pulitzers for. Yet many of his colleagues have disowned him. “Oh please,” wrote Alexia Campbell of Vox. “Assange is no journalist. We know who he works for.” Meaning Russia. “Julian Assange is not a journalist,” explained Jelani Cobb of the New Yorker, without explaining. Ken Dilanian of NBC, who doesn’t so much cover the national security state as write memos on its behalf, noted that, quote: “Many believe that if [Assange] ever was a journalist, those days ended a long time ago.” At NBC, when they tell you “many believe” something, it means they believe it. Why all the hostility? We’ll let former Democratic staffer and current CNN employee Jim Sciutto explain. Assange’s real sin was preventing Hillary Clinton from becoming president:

JIM SCIUTTO: He is central to several cases. He's central to Russian interference in the election, U.S. intelligence views him as a middleman, a cutout, that he was in effect part of this interference. He's central, too, to questions about what the Trump administration, or Trump campaign, I should say, knew prior to the release of those materials, right? What were the communications between Roger Stone, et cetera… It's possible that this is something President Trump himself is not particularly excited about.

There was a time, not so long ago, when reporters didn’t applaud the arrest of other journalists for publishing information. In 1971, the Washington Post and The New York Times published a trove of stolen classified documents about the Vietnam War. It was called the Pentagon Papers. Liberals loved it. Books were written celebrating their bravery. As recently as 2011, the Wasington Post saw the connection. Quote,“A conviction [of Julian Assange] would also cause collateral damage to American media freedoms,” the Post wrote that year. Quote: “It is difficult to distinguish Assange or WikiLeaks from The Washington Post.”

That was before the Trump election and the total war that followed, a war in which the media have definitively chosen a side. Press freedom? “Sure. As long as we agree with your politics.” The first amendment? “That all depends. Who’d you vote for?” The guardians of speech are now its enemies. The people charged with policing power are now colluding with it. There’s a reason you see John Brennan on NBC all the time. They’re all on the same team. We’re not saying any of this to defend Julian Assange. We just want to be absolutely clear about who hurts this country more. It’s not him.

[mickthinks]

I think I understand the point you are trying to make, which is that philosophy is somehow unreal and therefore unimportant. I think that's a mistake.

Ludwig Wittgenstein was a philosopher, perhaps the greatest of the 20th Century:

"Wittgenstein [...] found himself on the ship Goplana patrolling the Vistula River under heavy Russian fire. He wrote in his diary, “I can die in an hour, I can die in two hours, I can die in a month or only in a few years. I can’t know or help or do anything about it: that’s how life is. How should I live so as to be able to die at any moment?”

and
"In June 1916 Wittgenstein stood his post amid heavy shelling during Russia’s Brusilov Offensive, for which he earned the Bronze Medal of Valor; later he received another decoration, the Silver Medal for Valor, 2nd Class."

and
"In 1921 his battlefield notes on logic were published as Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, a book that profoundly impacted philosophy and established him as one of the twentieth-century’s greatest intellectuals.

[from https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/m ... -trenches/ ]

discuss lol

[Immanuel Can]

Well, an involuntary action is more likely to reflect what you actually believe.

It's like the woman who says, "My husband may have hit me, but he's sorry, and I'm sure he'll never do it again," but when he comes home and slams the door, she jumps anyway. What she says she knows is not what she really knows. And her instinct shows what she knows most deeply.

Is this something like those who say they know God is real, and that they know they are going to go to heaven after they die but they instinctively fear death and so really they KNOW what thee actual Truth?

Not quite.

We all fear death -- but not always because we don't believe in the afterlife. Death is often painful, creates separations, and leaves earthly business unfinished. That's hard for anyone, regardless of what you believe. Even a Christian parent is not going to want there to be a time of separation from his/her children, and even a Christian husband or wife is going to grieve for the loss of a spouse...even if only for a time. That's all perfectly normal.

But if you ever go to a real Christian funeral, you'll see the difference; I promise you. There's sadness, there's loss, there's grieving, but no despair and no fear. And there's the prospect of reunion with the loved one.

I actually enjoy Christian funerals. They're more like a graduation ceremony than a loss. You won't believe the difference.

Does the instinct and actions of these people SHOW what they KNOW most deeply?

Yes.

Go and see.

[Spyrith]

I'm no philosopher, but I would run. Why?

War is ultimately a form of unreason. By letting myself killed, I allow unreason to spread. By staying alive, I will help spread reason, and thus limit war.