AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION. General Discussion Digest for Friday November 6, 2020.

 

General Discussion

Post New Message

 

Nov 6, 2020

Discussions

started 19 hours ago, Alex Blum (1 reply) Metaphysical Truth    1.  What is a metaphysical truth? What makes it... Alex Blum 2.  What is a metaphysical truth? What makes it... Friedrich Grafe

started 8 days ago, Alex Blum (8 replies) Short Paper Section    3.  Smart idea.  Didn't Wittgenstein argue that the... Stefan Lukianov

 

top

next

1.	Metaphysical Truth
Reply to Group Reply to Sender
Nov 6, 2020 4:35 AM Alex Blum
What is a metaphysical truth? What makes it metaphysical?
Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward   Flag as Inappropriate

 

top	previous  next

2.	Re: Metaphysical Truth
Reply to Group Reply to Sender
Nov 6, 2020 10:00 AM Friedrich Grafe
What is a metaphysical truth? What makes it metaphysical?  Dear Alex Blum, I'll try to answer: asking/talking about metaphysics – in my perception - is a prime example for what is typical to philosophical dialogue, viz., eliminating questionable presuppositions before trying to answer. I'd like to summarize my personal answer to this topic (at some length but below 500 words :-) ) as follows: The use of the epistemological labels 'true', 'false' for metaphysical statements is -in my perception - inadequate, for suggesting an epistemic situation for metaphysical research, it does not reside in. Take Immanuel Kant's CPR seriously, as to that metaphysics is not possible as an exact science (like theoretical physics or pure mathematics). But it does not follow, that metaphysical research in some less ambitious way were not possible. Next, metaphysics is not the science of a separate world different from the world as viewed by science or as perceived or else experienced in every day life, profession and industry. In the opposite. Metaphysics is just about this one world, we inhabit, work on, reason about, … , while looking at it  from other points of view. There are basically at least two cognitive points of metaphysical view, and else perhaps equally legitimate non-cognitive view points in terms of ethical value, aesthetic respect, religious worship, … confine here to the cognitive ones: The perhaps most discussed cognitive viewpoint concerns the implicit assumptions about population and/or structure of the world, scientific theories carry with them, which vary with history of science (-> Collingwood). Examples are, the logical structure of scientific theories (including e.g. Ramsay sentences, indiscernibles, … ), the nature of physical space (in the time of Descartes,Leibniz, Newton), or physical conservation laws (mostly in a later time in the history of physics) Another equally important cognitive view point, not really covered by Kant but by his (e.g. german idealist) successors concerns the fact, that despite the (by CPR part I doctrine) indirectness of scientific access to the world, we are (intelligent) part(s) of this one world ('Ding an sich','substance','universe', …), have thus too some (!) direct cognitive access to the world, this cognitive relation given by introspection as well as indirectly by practice of different kinds (emotions, intentions, will, technical and industrial practice, social and economical interactions, … ) [My recent rather special article on Spinoza's metaphysics in E1 (see e.g. @philpapers) reflects in some way these general cognitive view points. ] ------------------------------ Friedrich Grafe Wendelstein ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- Original Message: Sent: 11-06-2020 04:34 From: Alex Blum Subject: Metaphysical Truth What is a metaphysical truth? What makes it metaphysical?
Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward   Flag as Inappropriate

 

top

previous

3.	Re: Short Paper Section
Reply to Group Reply to Sender
Nov 6, 2020 11:19 AM Stefan Lukianov
Smart idea.  Didn't Wittgenstein argue that the last task of philosophy was verbal language?  I'm sure that includes determining the best way to articulate your thoughts! ------------------------------ Stefan Lukianov Self Framingham MA ------------------------------
Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward   Flag as Inappropriate
------------------------------------------- Original Message: Sent: 11-05-2020 08:03 From: Anne Waters Subject: Short Paper Section Enjoying this site! Thanks and keep up the good work. Sent from my iPhone Dr. Anne Waters, J.D., Ph.D. Original Message: Sent: 11/4/2020 11:12:00 AM From: Jacob Andrews Subject: RE: Short Paper Section Are you guys picturing something peer-reviewed, a blog with looser guidelines, a subset of the APA website, or what? ------------------------------ Jacob Joseph Andrews Upper School Latin Teacher and IT Administrator – Covenant Classical School PhD Candidate, Philosophy – Loyola University Chicago https://jacobjandrews.wordpress.com/

BLAST FROM THE PAST: THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: IT WAS A RIGGED, NEITHER HILLARY CLINTON OR BERNIE SANDERS WOULD HAVE WON.

 

YOU REMEMBER THIS ONE, WHERE TRUMP WON 30 STATES, OR 60%, WITH 46% OF THE NATIONAL VOTE TOTAL.HAS ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE TO THIS EVER OCCURRED IN A PAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. UH, NO. NOW TRUMP WANTS A CLEAN SWEEP, BACK TO BACK RIGGED ELECTIONS IN HIS FAVOR. AS IN 2016, THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS DOING ITS BEST TO MAKE SURE THAT COMES TRUE IN 2020.

...That even with the results of the 2016 Presidential Election staring them in the face, neither the REPUBLICANS nor DEMOCRATS are going to contest the BOGUS ELECTION RESULTS THAT HANDED DONALD TRUMP THE OVAL OFFICE. So, if valid and fair Elections are a priority for you, I SUGGEST WORKING VERY HARD AT THE LOCAL AND STATE LEVELS, TO ENSURE THAT RESULTS ARE AUDITED, COMPUTER RESULTS ARE CHECKED AND RECHECKED, AND THAT THOSE WHO ARE IN PLACE TO ENSURE HONESTY AND ACCURACY ARE INVESTIGATED FOR ANY POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Apparently, at the Federal Level it is not a priority. DO NOT TAKE THE WORD OF YOUR OWN PARTY, BECAUSE HONEST AND OPEN ELECTIONS MIGHT NOT BE IMPORTANT. 

Just a reminder, these results were ACHIEVED BY THE ALTERING OF THE FINAL VOTE COUNTS.  Feeding or Providing one side with information detrimental to the other, COULD HAVE INFLUENCED VOTERS BEFORE THEY ENTERED THE POLLS, BUT WOULD NOT GUARANTEE VICTORY. THERE IS NO WAY TO QUANTIFY THE AMOUNT OF INFLUENCE SUCH INFORMATION WOULD HAVE. The Final Vote counts were determined by ILLEGALLY ENTERING THE SYSTEM , AND ENSURING THAT THE TOTALS GAVE DONALD TRUMP VICTORY.

Along the same lines; It is hilarious that Democrats are still turning on one another, ATTEMPTING TO EXPLAIN THE DONALD TRUMP VICTORY AT THE POLLS.

GUESS WHAT?: IT WAS A RIGGED ELECTION, NEITHER HILLARY CLINTON OR BERNIE SANDERS WOULD HAVE WON. TRY LOOKING FOR ACTUAL SOLUTIONS, INSTEAD OF GIVING DONALD TRUMP AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT DEMOCRATIC PARTY DISUNITY, SO HE CAN AVOID TALKING ABOUT THE UNMITIGATED DISASTER HIS ADMINISTRATION HAS BECOME.

HOW HAVE WE COME TO THIS? THE INCOMPETENCE, IRRATIONALITY, CRIMINALITY, AND BETRAYAL THAT HAS LEAD THE U.S. TO EDGE OF THE ABYSS. PART 1.

 

Since the Democrats are continuing their efforts to make things as easy as possible for TRUMP to add another Mediocre Legal Mind to the Supreme Court, furthering the FASCIST AGENDA THAT IS THE REAL GOAL OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, it is time to lay out the INCOMPETENCE, IRRATIONALITY, CRIMINALITY, AND BETRAYAL THAT HAS LEAD THE U.S. TO EDGE OF THE ABYSS.

#1- WHY DID THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BLOCK PRESIDENT OBAMAS CHOICE FOR THE SUPREME COURT MERRICK GARLAND?

The simple answer is to block a Well-Respected, Deserving, and Highly Regarded Legal Mind who would not blindly obey their Fascist Ideology. However, it was more than just that;

A TEST:
IT WAS TO SEE HOW MUCH, AND WHAT TYPE OF OPPOSITION REPUBLICANS WOULD FACE IF THEY DECIDED THAT REGAINING POWER AND KEEPING IT, COULD BE ACHIEVED THROUGH UNCONSTITUTIONAL METHODS. WITH A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION COMING UP, JUST HOW FAR COULD THEY PUSH THE DEMOCRATS (ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THE SENATE), INTO GIVING UP POLITICAL GROUND WITHOUT A FIGHT.

Again, here is the Text from SECTION 2 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

That's it. There are no Qualifications, What-Ifs, Different Scenarios etc; TO DO CONSTITUTIONALLY WHAT MCCONNELL DID WOULD REQUIRE AMENDING THE DOCUMENT. THERE ARE NO PRECEDENTS THAT WOULD ALLOW THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER TO DO WHAT HE DID. NONE. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CASE WHERE A PRESIDENTIAL SUPREME COURT NOMINEE WAS DENIED A HEARING AND VOTE BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE.

I can understand why REPUBLICANS didn't object, (HONOR AND DUTY IS NOT PART OF BEING A REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS), BUT FOR SENATE DEMOCRATS TO ACCEPT THIS IS INEXCUSABLE. EVEN IF THEY ACCEPTED MCCONNELL'S EXPLANATION THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT SHOULD MAKE THE CHOICE, A LAWSUIT TAKEN INTO COURT WOULD HAVE SET LIMITS AND GUIDELINES. LIKE THE FOLLOWING:

"THAT IN FUTURE ELECTIONS, SHOULD A VACANCY OPEN UP, THE COURT REQUIRES THAT THE SAME STANDARDS AND PRECEDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SET IN THIS CASE MUST BE FOLLOWED." 

THIS TYPE OF RULING WOULD PREVENT CONTINUOUS PERSONAL PREJUDICES, PARTY POLITICS, AND CRIMINAL INTENT FROM TURNING THE PROCESS INTO A 3 RING CIRCUS.
LIKE MCCONNELL AND TRUMP ARE DOING NOW.

HOW LUDICROUS IS THIS? IF WE, AGAIN, ACCEPT MCCONNELLS EXPLANATION THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT SHOULD MAKE THE CHOICE, THEN GIVING JUDGE GARLAND THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME. WITH A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY VOTING NOT TO APPROVE PRESIDENT OBAMAS CHOICE, (WHICH THEY CAN DO CONSTITUTIONALLY), THEY COULD HAVE FORCED A DELAY UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION. 

THIS WAS THE REAL TEST, AND SENATE DEMOCRATS FAILED MISERABLY. 

TO BE CONTINUED...

SO NOW WE KNOW: SENATE DEMOCRATS ARE TRUMP ALLIES.

 

 

I WONDER WHAT THEY'RE GETTING IN RETURN.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Senate Democrat: We can 'slow' Barrett's confirmation but 'can't stop' it.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Sunday that Democrats will be able to “slow” Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation process but “can’t stop” it.

During an appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Durbin confirmed an ABC News report that Democrats are without a “silver bullet” for stopping Barrett’s confirmation before the Nov. 3 election.

“That’s true,” Durbin told host George Stephanopoulos.

President Donald Trump formally nominated Barrett on Saturday to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, moving one step closer to establishing a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

Durbin said the timing and even the outcome of the confirmation process could change if at least four GOP senators speak out against holding it ahead of Election Day. So far, Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine are the only Republicans who have done so.

Democratic strategists ― including, Adam Jentleson, who served as deputy chief of staff for former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ― have outlined ways they believe Democrats could derail Barrett’s confirmation. 

But Durbin said Sunday that such plans could only temporarily stall the process.*

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

*THAT IS UNTRUE, AND HE KNOWS IT, AS DOES ANYONE ELSE WHO BOTHERS TO LOOK AT THE SITUATION WITH THE IDEA OF NOT BETRAYING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

TO GIVE A LITTLE PERSPECTIVE, THE FOLLOWING WILL GIVE YOU A LIST OF THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS CHALLENGED IN COURT AS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AS YOU CAN SEE, IF YOU CHECK THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE, REPUBLICANS, AND THEIR ALLIES FILED NUMEROUS LAWSUITS CLAIMING THAT THE ACA WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THEY LOST TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

HOW MANY LAWSUITS DID THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FILE CLAIMING THAT SENATOR MCCONNELLS REFUSAL TO GIVE MERRICK GARLAND, PRESIDENT OBAMAS CHOICE FOR THE SUPREME COURT, A MANDATED PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL? 

ZERO.

IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO STOP AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR EVERY AMERICAN,THAN IT WAS FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO PRESERVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE THAT THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE HAS TO BE GIVEN A HEARING AND A VOTE BEFORE THE SENATE.

A PRESIDENT FROM THEIR OWN PARTY.

 

TO BE CONTINUED...