Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 3:46 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 3:36 pm Logically, if Maia weighs as much as a duck, she's made of wood. Therefore she's a witch

I own two powerful fishing magnets. I keep them apart.

Logic and reason tells me that if I would put one magnet to one side of my head, and the other magnet to the other side of my head, then the magnetic attraction would push on the sides of my head. As the magnets drew closer together, the attraction would grow stronger until my head was squished. I could experiment with this, however if the theory is right I wouldn't have the strength to pull the magnets apart before the damage was done ... so I keep the magnets apart.

However, aside from the squishing, what the hell would that do to the brain?

I do not think sawdust is affected by magnetism.

Walker still puzzled by fishing magnets..

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:12 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:52 pm Yes, as I noted above, "from my frame of mind". And my frame of mind here, like yours and Maia's was acquired existentially...largely from personal experiences. And my own close encounters with Pagans and aboriginal communities came [admittedly] mostly from books and television and movies. Think The Wicker Man and Mel Gibson's Apocalypto. Or The Emerald Forest and At Play in the Fields of the Lord. I've never had any actual personal interactions with them.

Exactly. And that is what I suspected. So, my point in raising this was to say, hey, look, I have quite a bit of direct personal experience with these people and I think Maia does also. So, if you generalize about people you have little direct experience of, and your indirect experience is based on fiction, perhaps your frame of mind could shift. This doesn't mean you should take our words for it. However you might make less sweeping, if qualified, statements.

Oh, I agree. But over and again: Shift in regard to what context? Now, if the context is dowsing, magic and electro-magnetism, I would suggest taking your own experiences with Pagans to those in the scientific community...who either can or cannnot verify those experiences more, well, scientifically? Or to those in political authority within communities desperate to find water. Let the dowsers do their thing and, perhaps, possibly find water for them?

But what of "magic and electro-magnetism" in regard to my own main interest here:

"How ought one to live and to interact with others -- morally, politically, spiritually -- in a world that is teeming with both contingency, chance and change and in conflicting goods?"

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:12 pmOr will we read again in a few years....'from my frame of mind' Pagans are like X again? Can your frame of mind change? When you hear that others who have direct experience do not share your evaulation, does that have an effect?

All I can do here is to go back to this crucial distinction:

The gap between what we believe in our head about magic and electro-magnetism, about nature and spirituality...and what we are able to demonstrate [through experience] that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn. Given a particular set of circumstances in which beliefs and behaviors often come into conflict.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:12 pmIOW you read what I said and it seemed to have no effect at all. Yeah, you guys have a frame of mind, I have mine. I have mine and it hasn't changed. I appreciate the honesty about how you arrived at your frame of mind. I think you might agree it's not a particularly good foundation for an assessment.

No effect in regard to what... the "world of words" arguments that we are exchanging here?

The thing about dasein from my frame of mind is that, yes, whether in regard to dowsing, magic and electromagnetism or in regard to "I" out in the is/ought world awash in conflicting goods, we acquire -- existentially, subjectively -- personal opinions about any number of things that we are either able to demonstrate are true objectively for all of us or we are not. Given the fact that these interactions will unfold in what can be very, very different historical, cultural, social, political and economic contexts.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:12 pmYou then go on to psychoanalyze the people who have these beliefs.

Right, as though this too is not rooted existentially, subjectively, subjunctively in dasein. When I do it or when you do it.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:12 pmSo, based on films, you have drawn some conclusions about these people, and then go on to say why they think the way they do. Remember when I reacted by psychoanalyzing your and your motives. How you reacted that you weren't even sure yourself about these so how could I know so much about you?

Films and in reviews of the films in which many critiqued them precisely because from their own personal experiences the manner in which the Pagans and the indigenous communities were portrayed did not square with their own experiences.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:12 pmHere based on some films you generalize about and psychoanalyze a very diverse set of groups of people.

Why is that ok? On an epistemological level. Why aren't you even more cautious.

Cautious?! I'm no less fractured and fragmented here than in regard to philosophical endeavors involving conflicted value judgments and the Big Questions.

I'm not the one here calling Maia a fool because she believes what she does. I'm the one groping to grasp her beliefs given my own beliefs. I'm the one with great respect for her intelligence and probing the extent to which she might allow me to yank myself up out of the "hole" I've dug myself down into [philosophically and otherwise], or if I might instead succeed in bringing here down into it with me. The "win/win" scenario I call it.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:12 pmIt's one thing to recognize that how one should relate to nature is value based and it is tough or impossible to know which way of relating all rational people should. An ought question.

It's another thing to take on an IS issue: the psychological motivations for believing things in people you have no direct experience of based on some fictional films you've seen.

Well, how are we not all in the same boat here? This is the internet. It's not like we all grew up together in the same community, shared the same experiences, interacted in shared relationships, had access to the same information and knowledge. Instead, it is far, far more likely that our experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge were very different. Okay, then, given the tools of philosophy and a particular set of circumstances, what can we conclude reflects the most rational [and virtuous] set of behaviors?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:12 pmYes, you qualify yourself with 'from my frame of mind'. But given how little you know, why would you even put decide to share a psychological theory based on so little? And to place your frame of mind on this IS issue as seemingly implicitly of the same value as other frames of mind based on direct experience and in my case also academic and professional work?

Or are you merely being wildly speculative? And given the history of the way Euroamericans (I assume you are one of these) have related to indigenous and pagan cultures, might it not be more realistic and properly humble not to just sum up the psychology of people you have not met nor seemingly looked into much, even if you qualify this as from your frame of mind.

Then [from my frame of mind] the clear shift on your part here...making this exchange more about me than about the points I raise. The more "hostile", "challenging" "dismissive" inflection perceived by me in this post.

When, after all, my own perspective revolves more around just how complex these exchanges can become given all the variables involved and given just how different our lives can be. How "what we have here is failure to communicate" is often more the rule than the exception.

Though, sure, if you want to go the polemicist route, I can accommodate you.

From my frame of mind, this "spiritual" component revolves more around a psychological defense mechanism. Being able to ground your "soul" in something you are able to anchor I to. Something that reconfigures the individual as an "utterly tiny and insignificant speck of existence" in the staggering vastness of all there is given the brute facticity of an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence into "somehow" being "at one" with the universe.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:12 pmBecause from my frame of mind this smacks of the same kind of condescending judgments made by colonists and invaders. Without the violence, etc. And yes, many of those colonists and oppressors would not have qualified with phrases like 'from my frame of mind'. But why present this frame of mind and take it seriously?

Again, choose a set of circumstances relating to a moral conflagration of note. Note what you construe to be the frame of mind that many Pagans embrace based on your own experiences with them. Then I will respond given the assumptions I make about this at the intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy. Then as the exchange unfolds, you can note examples of all these accusations you raise about me here above.

Because [from my vantage point] on and on you go making it all about me. And up in the "general description intellectual contraption" clouds:

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:12 pmYou seem to take the flimsiest of impressions very seriously. And then basically tell other people about their psychology, both individuals and in this case very large groups of people, whole cultures.

And yet you are so split yourself you are not even sure about your own motives and psychology.

IOW a strength of knowing about what you call dasein is that one knows that one's attitudes are affected by one's particular culture, personality, experiences, knowledge base, etc. But a weakness can be the kind of weakness often associated (and correctly) with postmodernism. Hey, that's my view, there are lots of views. This is mine. And nothing changes that view, because, hey, they're all views. That can be defensible when it comes to ought issues. But it can be a real problem when it comes to IS issues. You get to say anything because you say its your point of view. So, you never have to defend your point of view, while at the same time expecting Maia, say, to defend hers.

What point of view in regard to what set of circumstances in which human beings often find themselves pursuing behaviors that come into conflict?

Your view, Maia's view, my view.

Maia wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 11:55 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 7:19 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:04 pm

Coastal cities have sunk into the sea in the past. Dunwich, for example, was once a thriving port in the middle ages, but is now under the North Sea. The climate changes.

Yeah, but back then there weren't a ton of scientists around noting that it all revolved around the burning of fossil fuels.

Sure, if you are able to convince yourself that this has little or nothing to do with human behavior...that it's all about Nature and climate, so be it. Just note that others disagree. And while the fossil fuel industry is awash in money revolving around the very nature of the capitalist political economy, not all scientists weighing in here are merely following the money themselves.

Then this part:

"Why did Dunwich fall into the sea?

In the Anglo-Saxon period, Dunwich was the capital of the Kingdom of the East Angles, but the harbour and most of the town have since disappeared due to coastal erosion."

Isn't erosion more a weather phenomenon?

And then the part when the next Ice Age does all but cripple vast chunks of "civilization" as we know it...is that just nature doing its thing? Spiritually or otherwise.

Then this part: https://astronomy.com/news/2019/04/the- ... ball-earth

Here, nature turns the whole planet itself into one gigantic "snowball".

Hard to imagine many human beings surviving the next rendition of that.

The point about Dunwich, or indeed the Neolithic optimum, is that climate changes without the need for fossil fuel emissions. But the long term trend is definitely that the earth is cooling down, since its formation. If we can find a way of slowing this down, this is probably a good thing.

Okay, but...

Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now. Moreover, anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases is estimated to potentially outweigh the orbital forcing of the Milankovitch cycles for hundreds of thousands of years. wiki

The next ice age almost certainly will reach its peak in about 80,000 years...
NYT

So, burning fossil fuels today might put off the next ice age...about 50,000 years in the future.

Meanwhile, burning them and, say, the next 50 years here on planet Earth?

And it is noted above that it wasn't climate change so much as weather erosion that sunk Dunwish.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:10 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 11:55 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 7:19 pm

Yeah, but back then there weren't a ton of scientists around noting that it all revolved around the burning of fossil fuels.

Sure, if you are able to convince yourself that this has little or nothing to do with human behavior...that it's all about Nature and climate, so be it. Just note that others disagree. And while the fossil fuel industry is awash in money revolving around the very nature of the capitalist political economy, not all scientists weighing in here are merely following the money themselves.

Then this part:

"Why did Dunwich fall into the sea?

In the Anglo-Saxon period, Dunwich was the capital of the Kingdom of the East Angles, but the harbour and most of the town have since disappeared due to coastal erosion."

Isn't erosion more a weather phenomenon?

And then the part when the next Ice Age does all but cripple vast chunks of "civilization" as we know it...is that just nature doing its thing? Spiritually or otherwise.

Then this part: https://astronomy.com/news/2019/04/the- ... ball-earth

Here, nature turns the whole planet itself into one gigantic "snowball".

Hard to imagine many human beings surviving the next rendition of that.

The point about Dunwich, or indeed the Neolithic optimum, is that climate changes without the need for fossil fuel emissions. But the long term trend is definitely that the earth is cooling down, since its formation. If we can find a way of slowing this down, this is probably a good thing.

Okay, but...

Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now. Moreover, anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases is estimated to potentially outweigh the orbital forcing of the Milankovitch cycles for hundreds of thousands of years. wiki

The next ice age almost certainly will reach its peak in about 80,000 years...
NYT

So, burning fossil fuels today might put off the next ice age...about 50,000 years in the future.

Meanwhile, burning them and, say, the next 50 years here on planet Earth?

And it is noted above that it wasn't climate change so much as weather erosion that sunk Dunwish.

Previous ice ages have come at fairly regular intervals, and last much longer than the inter-glacials, one of which we're in now. Right at the end of one, in fact, if we take the average previous durations. Their causes are too little understood to rely on Wikipedia.

Bear in mind also that ice ages are only a recent phenomenon, compared to the age of the earth, and they're only going to get worse.

During the Neolithic and early Bronze Age the climate was much warmer than today, and a great deal of land was under cultivation in the British Isles that even today is moorland and peat bog, unsuitable for agriculture. This very fact allows us to plot farm boundaries from that period, which have been preserved. This is definitely an example of climate change.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 4:37 pm I do not think sawdust is affected by magnetism.

Good one.

If you put little iron in that sawdust you might get a little woogie, ‘cause as you know, magnets boogie with iron. Maybe you didn’t know that since you were wandering around looking for a point. But there’s more to it. Two strong magnets close together have that boogie attraction passing between them and that something in between will woggie the iron and shoot right through the sawdust. That woogie force will be invisible thus unverifiable to skeptics, that much we know for a fact.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 4:39 pm Walker still puzzled by fishing magnets..Capture.JPG

Hey! How did you get that out of the family album?

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:23 pm Bear in mind also that ice ages are only a recent phenomenon, compared to the age of the earth, and they're only going to get worse.

Keep shoveling that coal.

It's not there by accident, but for a reason.

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:23 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:10 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 11:55 pm

The point about Dunwich, or indeed the Neolithic optimum, is that climate changes without the need for fossil fuel emissions. But the long term trend is definitely that the earth is cooling down, since its formation. If we can find a way of slowing this down, this is probably a good thing.

Okay, but...

Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now. Moreover, anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases is estimated to potentially outweigh the orbital forcing of the Milankovitch cycles for hundreds of thousands of years. wiki

The next ice age almost certainly will reach its peak in about 80,000 years...
NYT

So, burning fossil fuels today might put off the next ice age...about 50,000 years in the future.

Meanwhile, burning them and, say, the next 50 years here on planet Earth?

And it is noted above that it wasn't climate change so much as weather erosion that sunk Dunwish.

Previous ice ages have come at fairly regular intervals, and last much longer than the inter-glacials, one of which we're in now. Right at the end of one, in fact, if we take the average previous durations. Their causes are too little understood to rely on Wikipedia.

Bear in mind also that ice ages are only a recent phenomenon, compared to the age of the earth, and they're only going to get worse.

During the Neolithic and early Bronze Age the climate was much warmer than today, and a great deal of land was under cultivation in the British Isles that even today is moorland and peat bog, unsuitable for agriculture. This very fact allows us to plot farm boundaries from that period, which have been preserved. This is definitely an example of climate change.

And I assume that scientists aren't aware of any of this. You need to let them know asap!!

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 11:28 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:23 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:10 pm

Okay, but...





So, burning fossil fuels today might put off the next ice age...about 50,000 years in the future.

Meanwhile, burning them and, say, the next 50 years here on planet Earth?

And it is noted above that it wasn't climate change so much as weather erosion that sunk Dunwish.

Previous ice ages have come at fairly regular intervals, and last much longer than the inter-glacials, one of which we're in now. Right at the end of one, in fact, if we take the average previous durations. Their causes are too little understood to rely on Wikipedia.

Bear in mind also that ice ages are only a recent phenomenon, compared to the age of the earth, and they're only going to get worse.

During the Neolithic and early Bronze Age the climate was much warmer than today, and a great deal of land was under cultivation in the British Isles that even today is moorland and peat bog, unsuitable for agriculture. This very fact allows us to plot farm boundaries from that period, which have been preserved. This is definitely an example of climate change.

And I assume that scientists aren't aware of any of this. You need to let them know asap!!

As I said before, science goes where the money goes. Climate change is a massive, worldwide industry, funded by governments and corporations.

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 5:20 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 11:28 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:23 pm

Previous ice ages have come at fairly regular intervals, and last much longer than the inter-glacials, one of which we're in now. Right at the end of one, in fact, if we take the average previous durations. Their causes are too little understood to rely on Wikipedia.

Bear in mind also that ice ages are only a recent phenomenon, compared to the age of the earth, and they're only going to get worse.

During the Neolithic and early Bronze Age the climate was much warmer than today, and a great deal of land was under cultivation in the British Isles that even today is moorland and peat bog, unsuitable for agriculture. This very fact allows us to plot farm boundaries from that period, which have been preserved. This is definitely an example of climate change.

And I assume that scientists aren't aware of any of this. You need to let them know asap!!

As I said before, science goes where the money goes. Climate change is a massive, worldwide industry, funded by governments and corporations.

Umm no. Some PEOPLE go where the money is. You obviously don't understand what 'science' means. Anyone can understand the science of climate change and what is happening right now. The information is easily accessible.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:07 am

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 5:20 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 11:28 pm

And I assume that scientists aren't aware of any of this. You need to let them know asap!!

As I said before, science goes where the money goes. Climate change is a massive, worldwide industry, funded by governments and corporations.

Umm no. Some PEOPLE go where the money is. You obviously don't understand what 'science' means. Anyone can understand the science of climate change and what is happening right now. The information is easily accessible.

From what sources?

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:12 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:07 am

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 5:20 am

As I said before, science goes where the money goes. Climate change is a massive, worldwide industry, funded by governments and corporations.

Umm no. Some PEOPLE go where the money is. You obviously don't understand what 'science' means. Anyone can understand the science of climate change and what is happening right now. The information is easily accessible.

From what sources?

I'm not your mother. Grow a brain.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:22 am

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:12 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:07 am

Umm no. Some PEOPLE go where the money is. You obviously don't understand what 'science' means. Anyone can understand the science of climate change and what is happening right now. The information is easily accessible.

From what sources?

I'm not your mother. Grow a brain.

The point, which you seem to have missed, is that the sources of info are the very same organisations that promote climate change.

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:24 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:22 am

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:12 am

From what sources?

I'm not your mother. Grow a brain.

The point, which you seem to have missed, is that the sources of info are the very same organisations that promote climate change.

You stupid cow. Just go away.