What would you say about Hilbert's tenth problem? Is it truly impossible?

>The problem is that the self is itself an illusion

I've found these claims largely come down to how the self is initially conceptualised, someone might say the self is some "inner entity" within experience, upon which someone else may say no it's not, therefore it's declared illusory (similar to how Harris argues for the illusory self). Someone else may simply define self as not a "thing" one has but a "thing" one is, i.e talk of "self" is just talk of the human being I am, not talk of some "self" I own/have. It can largely just come down to linguistics & how we define "self" etc, it's an extremely jumbled topic & can also be conflated with maintenance of personal identity, which is largely a different philosophical discussion. Overall though, I don't see that there is any genuine "problem" of the self, rather just countless linguistic confusions & various moves people make. See here -

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/742/

No, I'm saying that eliminating capitalism from housing would also keep neighborhoods from improving.

Again, that's only the case if we continue with capitalism for housing.

>The author made some broad, sweeping statements that were easily shown to be false. If that is the case, what could be some other things that the author might have fudged for the sake of their argument?

Some of what the author said applies only to one specific neighborhood. In other neighborhoods, it doesn't apply.

So you'll attack the claim that whites are doing all the gentrification.

But that's not a claim that he made. Did he? I only see mention of this specific neighborhood with regards to race. And it's not even the important part of the article to my eye.

Is this not the very definition of attacking a straw man?

Edit: Also, it wasn't hyperbole, it was sarcasm, right?

I respectfully disagree, I think the case is quite poor as it entirely misses the essence of the problem and as others have stated as well, implies an objectively correct answer to philosophical issues can exist.

You don't have to speak in hyperbole, no one is demanding that of you.

The author made some broad, sweeping statements that were easily shown to be false. If that is the case, what could be some other things that the author might have fudged for the sake of their argument?

Again, the author could have simply made the case for X or Y or Z policies on their own merit but they wanted to add some gusto behind the argument. This means including rectifying racial injustice as a part of their raison d'être. But getting some of the foundational aspects of your argument incorrect feels like the author was putting the cart before the horse.

Honestly articles like this are fairly boilerplate, dime a dozen. Academics love to churn this stuff out. A more interesting point of contention would be analyzing the intersection between the Big Tech, diverse workforces who work in Tech, the progressive ideology that these workers overwhelmingly endorse (such as being anti-gentrification), and actually gentrifying such places. Trying to manage and balance a diverse political coalition that is easily prone to in-fighting and whose material interests often come at the expense of other members in the group would be an interesting dynamic to analyze. But no one believes that they are the ones carrying out such societal ills, these workers probably think that they aren't gentrifying even though they are (maybe because they read articles like this and believe that its only gentrification when/if you're White).

Even if an experiment isn't designed to lead the witness, it can still have that effect. Experiments and analogies tend to create situations ripe with pitfalls for our natural tendency to be lead astray by language.

Then the neighborhood doesn't improve anymore again.

Could you provide an example? Certainly there are solutions to problems that maximize for specific goals, but you would need to establish that the goal itself is objectively derived, and not just something that is desired.

Okay you're right, the author got the bit about race incorrect because it only applies to that one neighborhood so we should throw out all the other thoughts in that article?

That's how capitalism works, yes. But we don't have to do capitalism.

[removed]

>constant allusions to the "fact" that if you don't "get it" then you're just not savvy enough, you're just not seeing things the right way.

This is the most frustrating thing when talking to a compatibilist. They basically start from the position that their belief is correct and if you disagree it's because you just don't get it.

The reality is they use the term "free will" in a completely different way than it's common conceptualization and then act as if their definition is the obvious one.

The force being used against the people is economic. It boils down to violent force because, in the end, the police will enforce it with violence. It might as well be a violent force.

I completely disagree with this and generally i have the words to say why but im struggling here.

Sure moral intuitions depends heavily on context. But thats like the whole point of everything. If i get two different responses on the morality of something from 2 different people, that IS insightful, even if you believe that there is only one way that ethically you can act in that scenario.

For example, the trolley problem. One person gives a detailed explanation of why they would pull the lever. One person gives a detailed response about why they wouldn't. Yes both of those responses are dependent on the individual and the context, but why does it not matter because of that? Does the thought that both of these people disagree on what to do not generate philosphical insight?

Poor people want their community to improve without having to leave.

>And that is perfectly compatible with determinism

It isn't though. The ordinary concept of free will (the way most people use the term) is directly on contradiction with a deterministic universe

Kripke logic is mind fuck, I just wanna throw it at people who say philosophy is easy, Hegel's convoluteness isn't even comparable

Why should we all adhere to one interpretation of good?

I dont really agree. I agree that we might not know what the objective morality is, but I do think that we cant say that the existence of an objective moral theory doesnt exist.

People have the freedom to change communities or they do not. I am saying that any attempt to finesse that fact is intellectually dishonest.

That is the rationale governments have used in the past but things have changed. What is to prevent a transgender reservation or a queer reservation or a single mom reservation?

No

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.