The Philosophy Discussion Forum

security is having reasonable certainty that;

a) you have no existential unfinished business stalking you
b) formal systems protect legitimate ownership (certainty of access and control)
c) management systems change within reasonable and understood parameters

these roughly correspond to past, present, future.
these are necessary but are they sufficient?

If you had these three, would there be reason for anxiety on any other front?

Sad aside - As the world is now, i have none of those in any of the most meaningful ways.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:19 pm security is having reasonable certainty that;

a) you have no existential unfinished business stalking you
b) formal systems protect legitimate ownership (certainty of access and control)
c) management systems change within reasonable and understood parameters

these roughly correspond to past, present, future.
these are necessary but are they sufficient?

If you had these three, would there be reason for anxiety on any other front?

Sad aside - As the world is now, i have none of those in any of the most meaningful ways.

Given what particular context?

I'm sorry, but this post strikes me as the sort of thing that one might expect from...Alan Sokal?

I really am curious though as to how this might be fleshed out given a situation that [existentially] someone here finds themselves in right now.

I think there is a real philsophical question here, and well expressed.

My own first impulse is to ask: what is my own status within this existential context? To what extent can I control or influence my situation?

For example, if I am a single indigenous female parent of low educational standard, fully at the mercy of bureaucratic welfare decisions, I wouldn't feel much confidence in any of the three critical areas specified. On the other hand, if I'm a successful barrister whose partnership has just dissolved due to reasons beyond my control, I wouldn't be unduly worried.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:19 pm security is having reasonable certainty that;

a) you have no existential unfinished business stalking you
b) formal systems protect legitimate ownership (certainty of access and control)
c) management systems change within reasonable and understood parameters

these roughly correspond to past, present, future.
these are necessary but are they sufficient?

If you had these three, would there be reason for anxiety on any other front?

Having a very big spider hiding somewhere in your bedroom is the first thing I thought of, but there are no doubt others.

alan1000 wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 3:52 pm I think there is a real philsophical question here, and well expressed.

I've seen you patrolling this forum posing as the arbiter of all that is good for a while now, and I have concerns. You are going to need to improve your bullshit detection. You should have noticed that the OP is specious shite without my help.

But if it helps, Advocate is the same guy who wrote an actual argument that there is such a thing as a True Scotsman and therefore the claim of "No True Scotsman" is false, and he still thinks that was amazing philosophy because he is a delusional narcissist.

But even without that background info, you should be able to just skim a sentence like "management systems change within reasonable and understood parameters" and realise that it doesn't really convey anything at all. I suppose he is evolving somewhat, in the last 12 months or so he has learned to ape the superficial rhetorical stylings of that other arch psychopath JohnDoe7, which is all that it took to fool you.