Sunday, June 26, 2016

Germany "Owns" Europe?

Germany says 'won't let anyone take Europe from us'

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said on Saturday that the EU would weather the shock of the British vote to leave the union as he convened crisis talks.

“I am confident that these countries can also send a message that we won’t let anyone take Europe from us,” he said heading into a meeting in Berlin of his counterparts from the EU’s six founding members.
Well. The Allies had to take Europe away from Germany in two world wars, just in the past century. Now Germany owns them anyway?

Well, that's not exactly what he said. But Germany does control the fates of EU member nations, many of which are parasitic on the fatherland. How long will the indefatigable Germans be OK with the parasites draining off the fruits of their own productivity? Is just "owning" Greece sufficient, even though it's a money pit? Or will the stop-loss clause be asserted?

6 comments:

Phoenix said...

Stan,

Weekend fisher finally responded but I can't make out the precise argument he's making.

He responds to me:"No doubt that any existing source code can be traced back to a rational agent. I'm not planning on arguing that computers arise independently."

He also responds to Xellos at his blog:"Picture a computer that starts trying to build its own worldview, independent from what is given"

More incohorencies from WF:"So 'natural' includes 'physical' but also anything else governed by the laws of nature."

He has restricted his ontology to the material realm and accepts metaphysical propositions, as long as it is governed by the laws of nature. A classic Materialist ontological error.

Furthermore, he presents no reason to suspect the mind is physical other than with hypothetical questions and analogies.

I suspect his peculiar worldview which accommodates Materialism was established in order to avoid being ridiculed by Atheists.

JBsptfn said...

I showed it to Crude (on Crude Ideas), and told him that someone sent her (WF is a she, not a he) links to Ed Feser's arguments against natural mind and consciousness. He made a good point when he said that WF didn't even try to acknowledge or understand them.

Phoenix said...

JB,

Maybe she's still new to these topics, and perhaps she thought that a rational theist argument would have to be compatible with Physicalism. Unfortunately appeasing an irrational position is not only equally absurd but also cowardice.

JBsptfn said...

Good point. That is why some Christians try to align with Evolution as well.

BTW, she made another comment on her first blog entry about mind:

Quote "I promise I'm not trying to be obtuse ... maybe it comes naturally. But the question is: Why exactly do people think that consciousness is a deep philosophical mystery?

By "consciousness" I mean something like "state of being aware of existence and surroundings; may also include self-awareness and awareness of internal states".

It doesn't seem too mysterious, or no more so than a mirror, or eyesight.

Maybe I'm coming at it from a different definition or a different angle so that I'm missing other peoples' points. And I'd really rather not miss your point.

Any explanation is much appreciated."Quote

It still doesn't seem like she read too much of Feser's work.

Stan said...

If the conversation continues beyond today I will try to lay out some processes which are required (both necessary and sufficient) for demonstration of the truth value of a claim. The current approach wanders in an undirected fashion.

Phoenix said...

JB,

Quote "I promise I'm not trying to be obtuse ... maybe it comes naturally. But the question is: Why exactly do people think that consciousness is a deep philosophical mystery?

It is not a mystery for dualists/theists, it is only a mystery to the dedicated Materialist whose worldview cannot account for consciousness, free will,etc. and has to dismiss it as some kind of illusion.

By "consciousness" I mean something like "state of being aware of existence and surroundings; may also include self-awareness and awareness of internal states".

Typical vague Materialist terms, "internal states". This can be defined in multiple ways but NEVER literally because then the onus is on him/her to provide us with x-ray images of these "internal states" which equals consciousness. An onus they cannot satisfy.

It doesn't seem too mysterious, or no more so than a mirror, or eyesight.

More bogus comparisons and a straw man. No one made the argument that mirrors and eyesight equals self-awareness.

Maybe I'm coming at it from a different definition or a different angle so that I'm missing other peoples' points. And I'd really rather not miss your point.

That's correct, he definitions are either ill-defined or they are equivocated but they never really mean what they say.