tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post4364153794145153273..comments2024-03-29T02:27:32.635-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: WHOA BIG FELLA, EASY THERERobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-40331036291201863142021-09-10T15:41:28.370-04:002021-09-10T15:41:28.370-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Business Leads Worldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06682586770344781777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-20099282895714463452016-07-27T05:42:38.430-04:002016-07-27T05:42:38.430-04:00I really didn't want to respond to a snarky co...I really didn't want to respond to a snarky commenter like the misanthropist that has infiltrated this lovely blog lately, but I have to point out that I repeated Prof Wolff's claim simply because I think it makes a lot of sense and I agree with it. Trump is more irrational than Clinton, and therefore more likely to DO something irrational.<br />As for climate change, SOME action is better than none. Like I said, people need to push for someone better on both counts next time, but since Bernie lost, they need to support Hillary right now.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13337589981696719316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-48069593593871921672016-07-26T10:50:34.943-04:002016-07-26T10:50:34.943-04:00On a lighter note: younger readers may have missed...On a lighter note: younger readers may have missed your apt literary allusion, Bob, to the great horse, Silver. <br />Tom Cathcarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136970056480275148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-62278014020963447022016-07-26T10:43:19.900-04:002016-07-26T10:43:19.900-04:00Hopeless,
We untermenschen thank you for deigning...Hopeless,<br /><br />We untermenschen thank you for deigning to shed a bit of your light into our cave. s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-75582249204971304192016-07-26T10:03:54.260-04:002016-07-26T10:03:54.260-04:00Hopeless,
Since you hold others to very high st...Hopeless, <br /><br />Since you hold others to very high standards of evidence and criticize Professor Wolff for claiming that something is clear when he should have said that it was highly likely, why not follow those same standards yourself? It certainly weakens your position when you claim that there is "no chance" that Clinton will try to stop environmental destruction. Obviously, there is a chance, although it may not be likely. <br /><br />Up until now your interventions in this blog are best described by Matthew 7.3: "And why beholdst thou the mote that in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"<br /><br />If you are trying to convince people in this blog to vote for Stein, not Clinton, I doubt that you have convinced anyone. s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-11138656732858179352016-07-26T07:38:01.435-04:002016-07-26T07:38:01.435-04:00I am personally more concerned (and distressed) ab...I am personally more concerned (and distressed) about the mechanics of Brexit than I am about the US presidential contest, so at least I won't become monomaniacal about the latter, though I suppose I might become bi-maniacal. <br /><br />I am writing this from the 18th century Radcliffe Camera building of the Bodleian Library. Kant is not the only way to distract oneself from present-day troubles -- I can recommend the calming influence of a visit to a university library, the older the better. wallyverrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18358344785499490511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-64588869836338319142016-07-26T07:35:42.587-04:002016-07-26T07:35:42.587-04:00Anonymous, there is NO chance that she will win. S...Anonymous, there is NO chance that she will win. So if you want to reduce the chance of a nuclear war it's probably better to vote Clinton (as Professor Wolff was saying, stable and predictable is just safer!). If you want to reduce climate change, it is CERTAINLY and MUCH better to vote Clinton. If you go with big questions like this, it's even clearer you must vote for Hillary, not to mention all the other ways in which a Trump presidency will hurt the poor, women, ethnic and sexual minorities, and democracy in general. The best possible course of action is voting Clinton and supporting a strong left-wing movement to push her to the left as much as possible (it won't be much, but it's better than a TRUMP presidency!) and pave the way for a left-wing nominee next time.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13337589981696719316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-5941415809121779722016-07-26T06:13:11.922-04:002016-07-26T06:13:11.922-04:00I must confess, Prof. Wolff, that your interest in...I must confess, Prof. Wolff, that your interest in and invocations of Freud somewhat mystify me, given how little scientific evidence has been adduced for his "theories". <br /><br />Additionally, I find the Wittgensteinian critique of Freudian symbolism and dream interpretation to be cogent.<br /><br />(On the other hand, I would also expect Prof. Leiter to be more skeptical of the DSM than he apparently is in this moment.)TheDudeDiogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613928663752680375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-38415821391149291072016-07-25T22:52:20.166-04:002016-07-25T22:52:20.166-04:00With regard to no-one liking Hilary Clinton - why ...With regard to no-one liking Hilary Clinton - why should likability be a criterion when we vote? We should vote for the best qualified candidate, whatever the position may be. Back in the 90s a common criticism of Hilary was that she was "Bill without the charisma". I actually think it speaks well of American democracy that such an un-charismatic candidate is likely to be the next president.mesnenorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10813095598060277786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-61707139321314863562016-07-25T20:23:11.739-04:002016-07-25T20:23:11.739-04:00I harbor no delusions that she will win. I'm w...I harbor no delusions that she will win. I'm wise enough to know when I don't know. In fact she's likely to lose by a big margin this election. But she's imho the best chance we've got to avoid nuclear and environmental catastrophe. A small chance is all we've got. I'll take it over no chance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-21337521954063448412016-07-25T20:05:55.553-04:002016-07-25T20:05:55.553-04:00Idiocy is thinking that Stein can win. Which would...Idiocy is thinking that Stein can win. Which would be the only reason to vote for her on the nuclear war issue. Idiocy is not figuring out what my brief remark meant. David Auerbachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15612242467208247588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-50508689700018766402016-07-25T19:29:07.963-04:002016-07-25T19:29:07.963-04:00Nice try, Bob, but as you can see, we're all t...Nice try, Bob, but as you can see, we're all too crazed to be reined in. 😜Tom Cathcarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136970056480275148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-6659370543262870462016-07-25T19:19:05.316-04:002016-07-25T19:19:05.316-04:00Hopeless,
I don't know what you mean by "...Hopeless,<br /><br />I don't know what you mean by "superficial reasons" to like or dislike someone. Liking someone or disliking someone seems not to be a process that is governed by reasons. Do you need reasons to like someone or to fall in love with someone? I don't. There is a process which can be described which leads people to like or dislike someone or to fall in love, but it generally has little to do with reasons.<br /><br />As to Trump, no, he rubs me the wrong way and did at first sight. I don't like bullies and in general, I dislike entrepreneurs and people into making money as their chief goal in life. s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-27273569111461971002016-07-25T18:57:41.127-04:002016-07-25T18:57:41.127-04:00David Auerbach,
If you're referring to my com...David Auerbach,<br /><br />If you're referring to my comment above about people not liking Clinton, first of all, I stated clearly (if I can use that much maligned word) that it seems sensible to vote for Clinton to stop Trump.<br /><br />In theory I agree with you that political judgments should guide our voting behavior and our political behavior in general, but I'm sure that you are aware that many many people vote for and support politicians who they would like to have a beer or a latté with. I've worked on political campaigns myself, and politicians put a great deal of effort into getting voters to like them, much more effort than they put into explaining their political positions because they know that most people vote their heart, their guts and their genitals (although they may not be aware that they are voting their genitals), not their head. That's why Hillary smiles that stupid phony smile all the time because she desperately wants people to like her (and vote for her) and she knows that if they see as "simpática" like Bill is, she'll be in the White House. <br /><br />Now it would be great if people voted their head, because in capitalism the mass of people voting their head would vote for a social democratic or socialism alternative. That's why Professor Wolff has spoken about supporting a long-term movement for social change hopefully sponsored by Sanders and I agree with him about that, but that's a long-term project.s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-87961335141234104662016-07-25T18:40:10.043-04:002016-07-25T18:40:10.043-04:00Jill Stein is not our best option for survival bec...Jill Stein is not our best option for survival because she is not an option. <br />There's too much sloppy thinking around this 'like' word. *Like* her? I haven't met her; how would I know and why would I care. <br />*Like* her as in prefer her to Sanders in the primary. No. That's a political judgement into which rough and ready judgements of character are pretty much irrelevant. David Auerbachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15612242467208247588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-79246092177885233892016-07-25T16:55:42.755-04:002016-07-25T16:55:42.755-04:00I don't live in the U.S., so my main contact ...I don't live in the U.S., so my main contact with U.S. politics is reading blogs, mostly leftwing blogs, I admit. I also have a few friends and family members in the U.S. with whom I correspond by email, all of them left of center. <br /><br />Since the beginning of this campaign, I have not run into anyone (in the aforementioned blogs and among my friends) who likes Hillary Clinton. There are many who support her because it's the only way to stop Trump, and that seems like a sensible position to me. <br /><br />However, it is incredible that no one so far in my personal universe has had anything good to say about Hillary Clinton, either as a person or as a political figure. I just read that Sanders' supporters booed Sanders when he urged them to vote for Clinton and even chanted "lock her up". <br /><br />If things continue this way, I'm going to end up liking Hillary because being very perverse, I have a strange tendency to like whatever and whoever everyone else rejects. s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-13204860398003185312016-07-25T15:33:15.889-04:002016-07-25T15:33:15.889-04:00It is jarring that to really figure out a candidat...It is jarring that to really figure out a candidate for President of the United States the most qualified person would actually turn out to be a forensic psychologist for the FBI.<br />It's in fact much worse than the man needing a psychiatrist or analyst. Who doesn't?<br />Professor Leiter put the matter exactly as I would've liked<br />It's just unnerving howie bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-36308084054359422162016-07-25T15:13:47.425-04:002016-07-25T15:13:47.425-04:00yes but there is a more direct link between behavi...yes but there is a more direct link between behavior and pathology for certain types of psychiatrists<br />Plus we have the a record on Trump going back decades<br />past behavior predicts future behavior<br />You can easily treat Trump as a clinical type and I suspect with him what you see is what you get, aside from tactical mattershoward bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-38989918699390561932016-07-25T15:13:05.887-04:002016-07-25T15:13:05.887-04:00"Sociopath" and "narcissistic perso..."Sociopath" and "narcissistic personality disorder" are not Freudian concepts; they come straight from the DSM, and they do not require probing into a person's unconscious to ascertain, they are manifest in behavior which, if observed long enough, can provide more than sufficient evidence. That is what you did in your post on Trump, Clinton and nuclear war. Alas, you've now been wrongly influenced by the ignorant misanthrope!Brian Leiterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08749548844483929392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-5605897492136771002016-07-25T15:08:10.230-04:002016-07-25T15:08:10.230-04:00Thank you for this well reasoned and measured post...Thank you for this well reasoned and measured post. A little humility on what we know and don't know is a very good virtue especially at this time. Confucius said that Wisdom is maintaining that you know when you know and maintaining that you don't when you don't (Analects 2:17) <br /><br />I agree with you that if we find a candidate that is even a little bit less likely to engage in nuclear war, that would make a huge difference. I don't agree that Trump is clearly that person. I do think that Jill Stein is clearly that person. More than a little less likely with her in fact. This has to do with her consistent history of words as well as actions in protesting war and nuclear disarmament. I have been saying that in realizing we need to acknowledge what we don't know is that by overstating and using technical jargon without the technical background to give a semblance of knowledge is that we may blind ourselves to the possibilities of a Jill Stein (or even Gary Johnson). If we are certain that HRC is less likely to initiate in a nuclear exchange it may NOT be rational to choose Jill Stein. However, if we are not certain she is less likely to than Trump, Jill Stein may be our best option for survival. Promoting HRC does a serious disservice to reducing that chance. hopelessmisanthropenoreply@blogger.com