The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I am talking about reconciling inconsistencies between your own values.
So if I can offer a contradiction between what you claim are your values and what you offer as your policy prescriptions, then I have proven that at least one of the following is true: a) You have not presented your actual values honestly and completely. b) You have not presented your policy honestly and completely. c) You have made a mistake or an unexamined trade-off in deducing your policy from your values. d) I have made a mistake in my demonstration of a contradiction.
I have never discussed myself here btw.
JakeS identified ValentinD's ideology or something that consists of the absence of the same.
ValentinD clearly stated that he never discussed himself.
HOW can JakeS come up with conclusions about his set of values?
Oh, but you have. You have claimed that you do not have an ideology. Which, as far as I can tell is perfectly true.
This is not, however, praiseworthy. It means that your values, as far as they have been presented here, appear to be a jumbled mess of shallow slogans and ad hoc policy recommendations, with no overarching narrative other than fitting within the Conventional Wisdom of the Serious People. The Serious People, on the other hand, do have an ideology. And by not developing an ideology of your own, you leave yourself vulnerable to adopting theirs by default.
JakeS draws back on values, a mindset, an ideology possibly adopted from other people.
How can he do that? He perceives ValentinD's SPIRITUAL dimension though there's no proof of what that would be nor was it specifically outlined by ValentinD.
JakeS "felt" Valentin's hidden layer, which is his soul in human - not cosmic - terms.
the big issue is whether there is a spiritual world or not. Or religions pretend it is unmeasurable; I could add, maybe it's a matter of scientifical progress. Before we thought thunder was sent by Zeus, so my supposition is not aberrant.
Supposition is not aberrant, but it is unwarranted. Absent evidence of any consistent effects of the spirit realm, it is not reasonable to suppose that it exists. And absent any plausible mechanism for how the spirit realm works, it is not reasonable to suppose that it is a plausible explanation for any unexplained phenomena
JakeS is acknowledges that a spirit realm that doesn't provide evidence for consistent effects DOES NOT EXIST.
But he identifies ValentinD's "spirit realm (expressing in values etc) without any clear evidence.
It is of course possible to show effects both of ValentinD's values and of the spiritual realm at large. Since they are neither consistent nor measurable, it is hard/impossible to pin them down -
But THEY DO EXIST.
by IdiotSavant - Oct 14 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 10 68 comments
by IdiotSavant - Oct 14 6 comments
by Oui - Oct 11 29 comments
by Oui - Oct 15 12 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 8 74 comments
by ARGeezer - Oct 11 11 comments
by Oui - Oct 8 22 comments
by Oui - Oct 1512 comments
by IdiotSavant - Oct 15
by Oui - Oct 147 comments
by IdiotSavant - Oct 146 comments
by IdiotSavant - Oct 143 comments
by Oui - Oct 1129 comments
by ARGeezer - Oct 1111 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 1068 comments
by Oui - Oct 822 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 874 comments
by Oui - Oct 329 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 223 comments
by Oui - Oct 25 comments
by Oui - Oct 1
by Oui - Sep 2872 comments
by ARGeezer - Sep 2729 comments
by gmoke - Sep 26
by Oui - Sep 263 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 2626 comments
by Oui - Sep 2538 comments