...The trivialist believes that all contradictions are true. (Indeed, assuming that one believes a conjunction iff one believes both conjuncts, this is an alternative characterization of the trivialist.) It is often said by way of objection to dialetheism that if one is a dialetheist, one might just as well be a trivialist. This is a silly objection, as are most slides from ‘some’ to ‘all’. (Compare: you believe some things to be true; why don't you believe all things to be true? ) Nonetheless, even though this is not a good objection, the question of why one should not accept everything is one that an honest dialetheist will ask themself. The question is also significant for a non-dialetheist; I will explain why later in the chapter.

The question of how to justify the common-sense view concerning trivialism is, in fact, one that can be interpreted in different ways. For a start, we need to distinguish between the following interpretations:

Interpretation 1: We do, presumably, have good grounds for supposing that trivialism is unacceptable. What are they?

Interpretation 2: Suppose that you met someone who took everything to be true. How could you justify your position vis à vis theirs?

If the distinction is not clear, just reflect on the following analogy. I know that I have some money in my bank account. You have no reason to doubt my word for this. But you may still ask how I know. I can then give you the following sort of explanation: ‘In my last bank statement there was a certain amount of money in the account. I haven't spent that much since then, and the bank virtually never makes accounting errors.’ This is a perfectly acceptable answer. But suppose that I meet a sceptic, who is convinced that I do not know that I have money in my account; then considerations of the kind just adduced will not be at all acceptable. They will fall to the usual range of sceptical considerations. In the same way, Interpretation 1 takes it for granted that not everything is true, and just asks for an explanation of how we know this. But in a confrontation with a trivialist, the situation is quite different. One cannot, in this case, take it for granted that not everything is true: that, after all, is exactly what is at issue. A much more robust justification is required. This is Interpretation 2, and is much harder. Given the fact that the trivialist will agree with everything that is said, it is not even clear how to conceptualize the issue adequately.

he adds a footnote:

I often find myself being asked the following question: ‘Since you believe some contradictions, but not all, you must have a criterion for deciding between those that are true and those that are not. What is it?’ In reply I usually point out that the questioner believes that some things are true, but not all, and ask them what criterion they have for deciding between those things that are true and those that are not. The answer is, I think, the same in both cases. Nice as it would be to have a criterion of truth, to expect one would seem to be utopian. One has to treat each case on its merits, whether the proposition concerned is a contradiction or some other thing.

i don't know the extent to which that analogy is pure coincidence. as bad as this might look, we're at least doing better than when Cantor published his proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Philosophy.2C_religion_and_Cantor.27s_mathematics

Edited by dm (Feb. 6, 2012 13:29:07)

mistersix posted:
because wealth is not a zero sum game, wealth is created every time someone trades with another, and everyone is better off.

YES. THIS IS IT.

"ok, here is a set of things that provides utility"
"this is how you combine them to make another one"

Wittgenstein posted:
But why does it occur to one to want to make precisely this word into a name, when it evidently is not a name?--That is just the reason. For one is tempted to make an objection against what is ordinarily called a name. It can be put like this: a name ought really to signify a simple. And for this one might perhaps give the following reasons: The word "Excalibur", say, is a proper name in the ordinary sense. The sword Excalibur consists of parts combined in a particular way. If they are combined differently Excalibur does not exist. But it is clear that the sentence "Excalibur has a sharp blade" makes sense whether Excalibur is still whole or is broken up. But if "Excalibur" is the name of an object, this object no longer exists when Excalibur is broken in pieces; and as no object would then correspond to the name it would have no meaning. But then the sentence "Excalibur has a sharp blade" would contain a word that had no meaning, and hence the sentence would be nonsense. But it does make sense; so there must always be something corresponding to the words of which it consists. So the word "Excalibur" must disappear when the sense is analysed and its place be taken by words which name simples. It will be reasonable to call these words the real names.

the scissors of supply and demand are Excalibur. fucking Leibniz. OF COURSE IT ISN'T A ZERO SUM GAME! LOOK AT ALL OF THE COMMODITIES! MORE AND MORE AND MORE OF THEM

EXCALIBUR!!!!!!!

Crow posted:
OK Lmao Graeber said, in response to the guy's denunciation of so-called 'Buffy Studies', that he actually started Buffy Studies with his paper, whats wrong with that? and also: "sure I hate him [Bono] too that wasn't my point. I take the autonomist view.. That capitalism is forced to absorb oppositional movements means we win too. Or do you think that feminism failed utterly bcs capitalists claim to embrace it?" vaguely equating 'indie' filmmaking with feminism. Come on.

in America or South Africa or Germany
Shoot Bono
on a Dusty road
in a back woods bar
shoot Bono

shoot Bono and live
shoot Bono and live

cut his throat
cut his throat

hang the bleeding heart

all you white farmers you hunters
and bikers
shoot Bono and live

calling for the Death of Bono
calling for the death of Bono

shoot him on a river bank
on the dusty streets of Jerusalem
some sidewalk in harlem

shoot Bono and live

So we’ve created a society in which many young people see no chance of ever achieving middle-class status; then we look at their failure to adhere to middle-class values, and declare that there must be some mysterious force corroding our morality.

discipline posted:
Took a test today that asked a question about growth and required a multiple choice answer. Deffo took issue with the nature of the question + answers ahahaha I'm such a babby

slowly the world comes to represent its political structure

ATHENS — After days of dramatic talks, Greek political leaders reached a deal on Thursday to support a package of harsh austerity measures demanded by Greece’s financial backers in return for the country’s latest bailout.

The deal is expected to unlock €130 billion, or $172 billion, in new loans and save Greece from a potentially disastrous default.

Talks between Prime Minister Lucas D. Papademos and the three leaders backing his coalition had stalled overnight over proposed cuts to pensions, but on Thursday leaders said they had found a way of plugging the €300 million shortfall by cutting defense spending and other expenditures.

A statement issued by the prime minister’s office on Thursday afternoon confirmed that the government and its creditors had an agreement. “Talks between the government and the troika on the issue, which had remained open for further elaboration and discussion, concluded successfully this morning,” the statement said. “As is well-known, the program accompanies the new loan deal with which Greece is to receive €130 billion in funding.”

After more than seven hours, talks had stalled early Thursday between Mr. Papademos and the three political leaders in his government, who agreed on a range of steep wage cuts and public sector layoffs. But the politically unpopular pension cuts had proven most thorny.

Once the deal is finalized and the measures are approved by the Greek Parliament in the coming days, the lenders are expected to begin releasing to Greece the aid it needs to prevent a default when its next debt payment comes due on March 20.

The deal is also expected to pave the way for a bond swap under which private investors would take losses of as much as 70 percent — a deal that must be completed well before the debt comes due.

....

Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos of Greece was to brief his counterparts in Brussels later Thursday.

....

The leaders appear to have agreed to one of the most unpopular austerity measures, a 22 percent reduction in the minimum wage, to €586 a month, according to an earlier statement by the prime minister’s office.

That cut is expected to affect all salaried workers, because the base wage is used as a benchmark by employers.

But Mr. Samaras, of New Democracy, said the talks had foundered over cuts to pensions. Mr. Karatzaferis, whose populist, hard-right former opposition party has been losing ground with voters since it joined the government, said he would support Mr. Samaras to prevent proposed cuts to supplementary pensions.

Analysts suggested that the coalition partners were seeking to avoid blame for the agreement in hopes of leaving Mr. Papademos as the principal target of public anger.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, who heads a group of euro zone finance ministers, had scheduled a ministerial meeting for Thursday that he had previously said he would call only if Athens were ready to sign off on the plan.

Even that meeting would not be the final word. But it would allow for preparations for a bond swap under which private investors would take losses of as much as 70 percent, according to one person briefed on discussions who agreed to describe them only if the person were not identified.

Some details of the bailout remained unclear, but it appeared increasingly likely that the European Central Bank would agree to forgo at least some of its potential profits on Greek bonds, once the government in Athens had agreed to the austerity measures.

Papademos posted:
A disorderly default would plunge our country in a disastrous adventure. It would create conditions of uncontrolled economic chaos and social explosion...this is an hour of historic responsibility.

e: here we go

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/world/europe/greeks-start-48-hour-strike-after-austerity-measures.html

“It goes without saying that whoever disagrees and does not vote for the new program cannot stay in the government,” he said in a televised speech to his cabinet following the resignation of several ministers and their deputies.

....

Mr. Papademos went to some lengths to explain in his speech the terrible repercussions of a disorderly default. “It would create conditions of uncontrolled economic chaos and a social explosion,” he said. “The state would be unable to pay wages and pensions and cover basic operational costs such as those of hospitals and schools.”

Imports of basic goods like fuel and medicine might become prohibitively expensive, he said, and businesses would close down en masse. “The living standard of Greeks would collapse and the country would be dragged into a spiral of recession, instability, umemployment and misery,” he said. “All these developments would lead, sooner or later, to Greece’s exit from the eurozone.”

if only you bluff hard enough....

Edited by dm (Feb. 10, 2012 19:27:36)

Some protesters compared Greece's plight, facing bankruptcy unless it accedes to the demands of international lenders, to its seven years under military dictatorship.

On Syntagma Square in central Athens, songs from the struggle in the 1960s and 1970 against a junta of colonels boomed out over loudspeakers.

Police said three policemen and two protesters were slightly injured in clashes. Five people were detained.

With Greece probably at its lowest ebb since the junta was overthrown in 1974 and democracy restored, protesters denounced the "troika" of lenders - the European Commission, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund.

"Do not bow your heads! Resist!" They chanted. "No to layoffs! No to salary cuts! No to pension cuts!

Analysts say only a breakdown of party discipline can sink the package in parliament, where the coalition has a huge majority.

"There will most likely be a string of defections and abstentions but I don't believe that the measures will fall short of the majority required," political analyst George Sefertzis told Reuters.

notice that the comparison is not disputed and they just move on to the analyst

dm posted:

incredible physical comedy at 38 seconds

jools posted:

dm posted:

incredible physical comedy at 38 seconds

lmao