sethoflagos

In other words, a pin to the bubble of Naturalism, Realism, Causal Closure, & the Principle of Sufficient Reason So no biggie then.

Just for interest I threw this into Google to see which long forgotten source I'd pilfered it from. Of course the irritating little LLM Google now features had to chip in with: So I thought, what the hell, and plugged in: Make of it what you will, but this is the answer I received I do understand the status of LLM outputs on our site, and in no way do I present this as authoritative in any sense (one glance at the reference list is enough to dispel that idea). But I found it interesting nevertheless, and felt I ought to share.

I stroke my chin and chuckle.

Perhaps this is best answered by a couple of clips from the wikipedia page on Metaphysical Realism Speaking as a retired engineer, my career would have been impossible were my fellow engineers and I unable to agree on the reality and nature of the various facilities we were called on to design or modify. The subsequent operational success of pretty well all those ventures is more than enough evidence to convince me of its validity. Others may differ, of course. However I reserve the right to stroke my chin, chuckle, and dismiss them as crackpots.

I've watched that video through start to finish twice now and I feel so sorry for him: over 40 years to get through a process I'd got through by my eighth birthday. I've not spent much time in America; a short holiday in Sarasota; a winter working in Maine. What struck me was that the superficial pleasantness of most people I met was coupled with a sense of some deep, repressed anger I couldn't understand. For why? You're living the American dream, you have evrything you want, don''t you? More than thirty years on, I'm now seeing America through different eyes. I wish you well.

The observed state of the present IS the absolute truth. 1=1 now, then, and forever unto eternity. This does not stall the arrow of time. It shames me to admit that I never read the Little Red Book, and therefore an ill-equipped to comment on its contents. As for the concept of absolute truth, I feel I've already said everything I currently have to say on the matter and feel an urge to disengage from this thread to allow others space to air their views. I was impressed by @KJW 's recent post. Perhaps he has something valuable to add here.

Today, I've been truly and utterly gobsmacked. For a few years now I''ve been following Doug Helvering's ''An American Reacts" type Youtube channel as he explores the progressive rock music that formed the backdrop to my teenage years in the seventies. A bit of an odd-one-out compared to my other subscriptions, but I find his observations witty and intelligent, and here hidden from much of the outside world in my isolated little man cave, I find that he helps keep me grounded in three key areas: Not all ''An American Reacts" type videos are rubbish. Not all Americans are bad people. Not all christians are bad people. Out of the blue, this week he posted a video about himself, his 'religion', and his views on the state of US politics. I was not expecting this at all, (and bear with me, it becomes highly relevant to the OP as he develops his thoughts)

Digital products and services keep getting worse. In the new report Breaking Free: Pathways to a fair technological future, the Norwegian Consumer Council has delved into enshittification and how to resist it. The report shows how this phenomenon affects both consumers and society at large, but that it is possible to turn the tide. Read more on: https://www.forbrukerradet.no/breakin... Shitty translation (premium users only): https://www.forbrukerradet.no/news-in-english/digital-products-and-services-are-getting-worse-but-the-trend-can-be-reversed/

This thread reminds me of a book by Michael Katz: The Undeserving Poor: America’s Enduring Confrontation with Poverty (1989) It applies pretty well world wide of course.

Quite. I spend part of most years with my wife in London. Although we enjoy our time together, it's always something of a relief to get back to Nigeria. The vast majority here live hand to mouth on low, often irregular incomes, yet in general, manage to be much more pleasant and good-natured. Perhaps it's the weather that gives them a sunny disposition.

What becomes false as a fact in the present becomes one of the past? Only the tense used to describe it, surely? The event itself doesn't change. Several observers watching the event see it happen at different times in their frames of reference. But it's still the same event for all of them.

Yak, ox, ram, deer, gator, at a tarot agreed Marx okay!

Only @exchemist and that's handbags at ten paces stuff as far as I can tell. What exactly are you taking umbrage over? My perception of a possible hint of true blue Tory in something you said? Methinks thou dost protest too much!

Glad to hear it. Let me remind you of my response to all three examples: As condemnations go, this is pretty mild isn't it? And the ensuing quote only really says that your comments are a reflection of your socioeconomic background. I don't really understand why you seem so upset about it. Though many apologies, of course, if I've been inadvertently insensitive.

Same words therefore the same perception. Perhaps if you provided a reference in support of your observation, we may be able to gain a better insight into its true relevance.

Not in so many words, but I gave three examples earlier that I perceive to be 'dog-whistles' of the same general idea with varying degrees of sanitisation. Whether you agree with my perception or not, it has been part of the reactionaries' standard playbook for centuries. As @swansont noted: It saddens me that this is the knee-jerk initial reaction of so many. Not that it's an untruth particularly. But rather that it comes first: before any hint of mitigating circumstances such as mental or physical disability; before any mention of regional economic decline; before anything that may hint at there being any nobility hidden in that suffering. Just like a Telegraph or Daily Mail editorial. (Not that I've read either for many, many years). Simulpost with @swansont : yes, I took your intent as positive and constructive.

That some significant percentage of the most needy in society are greedy/feckless/lazy etc or otherwise undeserving of sympathy. Others might see this as victim blaming.

Addendum: on reflection, I should flesh the above out a bit. Both classical Marxism, and most modern interpretations place the 'Profession and Managerial Class' (PMC) as an integral structural part of the Proletariat, albeit a somewhat privileged one. This, and their frequent placing as intermediaries between Capital and Labour makes them somewhat fickle allies. It suits the likes of Musk & Co to redefine the term 'Bourgeois' to include the PMC in order to encourage them to support their team by making Marxist theory appear hostile towards them. Also, whilst the hypocrisy of Musk & Co denigrating the needy as greedy would be obvious to all, encouraging the PMC and less needy members of the Proletariat to do so too is clearly a useful tool of divide and rule. I notice that while many here have repeated this slur, no one has suggested the possibility that some in poverty may decline assistance out of pride or shame. One wonders why. I know we have different political and religious views. I will attempt to treat yours with greater respect than you do mine.

In the time since it was written, both social demographics and the labels attached to them have changed significantly. Marx's terminology is based broadly on the following: The analysis does not include what we now call the middle class, and was written long before the days of universal adult suffrage. Please don't take it personally: people like us were few and far between in those days, and therefore scarcely merit a footnote.

Download this and broadcast it on loop every hour or so: Friendly neighbourhood raptor Getting daily visits from Fork-tailed Drongos at the moment. Now their calls are wyrd! Drongo

It must by now be clear to all that our outlooks on life are diametrically opposed. You stated ... and then refused when asked to be more specific. I'll give you a response to your argument if and when you get around to presenting one. Until that happens, then yes, I really can't be arsed to enter into what is little more than a juvenile slanging match.

This is the core question to which those of Naturalist and Realist inclinations (eg the majority of philosophers, scientists and engineers) have in recent times often turned to Historical Materialism for an answer: ... see A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859) by somebody or other. Basically the static materialism of Feuerbach with the addition of dynamical evolution driven by the conflicts mentioned in the OP. Thin end of the wedge. Not necessarily my own personal view of your understandable reservations, but the orthodox response in certain circles would be: ... just a discussion point, you understand 🙂 PS. Not sure where monks fit in such a critique these days. 😉 PPS. I'm also well aware that that last quote could also be levelled at myself.

Yes. Any present state has a causal history - a unique chain of events that actually happened whether we have means of identifying them or not. It is true that each must have happened in some specific order that resulted in what we observe today. If any of these truths had potential to become falsehoods after the fact, then reality would be subject to random and sudden inexplicable changes of state. If you don't believe in the existence of absolute truths, you are essentially rejecting causality. That''s rather a big deal, I think.

Yes, she's very impressive.

Probably. We deal with point loads and line loads all the time in eg. Piping supports. They may exist in theory for an infinitesimally short time, but are converted instantaneously to area loads by deformation of the bearing surfaces. The 'rigid pipe assumption' is a useful approximation in some calculations, but creating a truth from the answer requires a very careful wording. Such examples generally yield limiting values hence by their very nature lie on (or beyond) the border of reality.