Is that not a new development since the advent of Trump-Russia collusion? I remember in 2017 thinking it strange that it was the Democrats not the Republicans who were making such a big deal about how Russia Is Bad. — Pfhorrest

That was my understanding too, but I think it’s part of a longer term decline in relations. Reflecting that, American anti-Russian sentiment, which Russians are sensitive to, has been getting significantly worse since 2013, according to this Wikipedia article.

I agree, but go easy on him. He has a pathological condition in which any mention of Russia sends him into a bloodthirsty frenzy.

You seem not to understand Russians at all. — ssu

Lack of understanding has never stopped him before.

Well, it's not up to me. My people will decide.

Busy sorry

In fact, it's not a problem. I presented it like that for fun, just to see how you'd all react.

It's rational. She's Russian and wants the best for her country. The Democrats are the anti-Russia party, and there's the expectation of new sanctions and other economic problems that will likely get worse with Biden in charge.

My wife is pro-Trump. What should I do?

You called?

EDIT: oh I see, no: Hippyhead.

You're forgetting, HH: everything right now is the worst it could ever be and we're at the final crisis point.

As always. :wink:

I am somewhere between Epicurus/Aristotle & Aristippus on the pleasure question, but even the latter taught that the pursuit of physical pleasure should be restrained by moral concerns. — Saphsin

Thanks, I didn't know that Aristippus and his crew were hedonists to the degree that they were. In what way did he think that there should be a moral restraint?

Do you think the observation of the impoverished life being widespread and the lack of opportunities to pursue such pleasure for many people may have been a contributing factor? — Saphsin

I'll interpret this question in two ways.

(1) Philosophers themselves have lacked those opportunities and have become scornful or suspicious of bodily pleasures and the physical world in general because of that, just like the "incels who glorify aceticism" that I mentioned.

(2) Or philosophers, noticing that most people live impoverished lives in which they have little chance of indulging in bodily pleasure; or little chance of indulging in bodily pleasures in an artful, varied, endlessly stimulating way; or without the danger of great suffering; noticing all that, philosophers put forth propaganda to make the people feel better about it. That is, they want to spread a message of self-abnegation to help people cope with their impoverished lives.

I now think that you mean (2), but I originally thought you meant (1). Maybe I hadn't read it properly. I'll look at both anyway.

(1) Nietzsche is interesting here. He's not a hedonist, because he celebrates pain as much as pleasure, but he does attack the "despisers of the body", and even if he just had Christians in mind, maybe we could add some of the philosophers too. For Nietzsche, a life without a variety of bodily pleasures and pains is an impoverished one.

Your question, then: could this very impoverishment lead philosophers to despise the body?

"Body am I, and soul"—so saith the child. And why should one not speak like children?

But the awakened one, the knowing one, saith: "Body am I entirely, and nothing more; and soul is only the name of something in the body."

The body is a big sagacity, a plurality with one sense, a war and a peace, a flock and a shepherd.

An instrument of thy body is also thy little sagacity, my brother, which thou callest "spirit"—a little instrument and plaything of thy big sagacity.

"Ego," sayest thou, and art proud of that word. But the greater thing—in which thou art unwilling to believe—is thy body with its big sagacity; it saith not "ego," but doeth it.

What the sense feeleth, what the spirit discerneth, hath never its end in itself. But sense and spirit would fain persuade thee that they are the end of all things: so vain are they.

Instruments and playthings are sense and spirit: behind them there is still the Self. The Self seeketh with the eyes of the senses, it hearkeneth also with the ears of the spirit.

Ever hearkeneth the Self, and seeketh; it compareth, mastereth, conquereth, and destroyeth. It ruleth, and is also the ego's ruler.

Behind thy thoughts and feelings, my brother, there is a mighty lord, an unknown sage—it is called Self; it dwelleth in thy body, it is thy body.

There is more sagacity in thy body than in thy best wisdom. And who then knoweth why thy body requireth just thy best wisdom?

Thy Self laugheth at thine ego, and its proud prancings. "What are these prancings and flights of thought unto me?" it saith to itself. "A by-way to my purpose. I am the leading-string of the ego, and the prompter of its notions."

The Self saith unto the ego: "Feel pain!" And thereupon it suffereth, and thinketh how it may put an end thereto—and for that very purpose it is meant to think.

The Self saith unto the ego: "Feel pleasure!" Thereupon it rejoiceth, and thinketh how it may ofttimes rejoice—and for that very purpose it is meant to think.

To the despisers of the body will I speak a word. That they despise is caused by their esteem. What is it that created esteeming and despising and worth and will?

The creating Self created for itself esteeming and despising, it created for itself joy and woe. The creating body created for itself spirit, as a hand to its will.

Even in your folly and despising ye each serve your Self, ye despisers of the body. I tell you, your very Self wanteth to die, and turneth away from life.

No longer can your Self do that which it desireth most:—create beyond itself. That is what it desireth most; that is all its fervour.

But it is now too late to do so:—so your Self wisheth to succumb, ye despisers of the body.

To succumb—so wisheth your Self; and therefore have ye become despisers of the body. For ye can no longer create beyond yourselves.

And therefore are ye now angry with life and with the earth. And unconscious envy is in the sidelong look of your contempt.

I go not your way, ye despisers of the body! — Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

So according to Nietzsche, the answer is yes. This is a form of ressentiment.

The idea appeals to me, but I don't know if it's true of philosophers, so much as, say, religious fanatics, puritans, Christian moralists, etc. In any case, in response to the OP, it does suggest that Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll indeed ought to be "part of the philosopher's quest".

As for the other interpretation of the question...

(2) On one hand, no: it seems to me that philosophers sometimes almost define the common people as those who go through life indulging themselves in eating, drinking, and sexing too much. Their lives are not impoverished enough when it comes to pleasure or self-indulgence. On the other hand, yes: philosophers have offered ways of dealing with worldly suffering, like the Stoics and others who advocate caution at the very least: enjoy yourself occasionally but don't go crazy cos it'll end in tears. So I think it's a good point, but it very much depends on the historical and social context, and the motivations of the philosophers.

This question arose in my thinking about the answers put forward in a thread about the ethics of masturbation. I was astounded by the puritanical thinking ... — Jack Cummins

I was too, when I first joined the original philosophy forum. It's tempting to dismiss it, as if it's just a problem with incels who glorify aceticism and the life of the mind because they can't enjoy the life of the body. But that won't do, because the attitude seems to be shared by many of the great philosophers, not least Plato. The basic dichotomy is between the rational mind (the soul) and the corrupting and deceiving world around us, the world we sense and enjoy and suffer from. So the roots are deeper than Kant and Christianity. Maybe we can pin the blame on the Buddha and Plato.

There were other Greeks who were less sniffy about pleasure, like Aristotle and Epicurus. For Aristotle, pleasure isn't to be denounced or celebrated: it's necessary for a good life, but everything in moderation. Epicurus thought it was fine to enjoy a nice meal but mainly because when you're satisfied after eating it, you cease to want, and this ease and satisfaction is where the best pleasure lies.

I think there is something of Plato's scorn remaining here:

It is not by an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not by sexual lust, nor the enjoyment of fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul. — Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus

Nothing says FUN! like sober reasoning, eh?

It seems doubtful that there can be a philosophy that celebrates physical pleasure, that celebrates an unbroken succession of drinking bouts. After all, philosophy is inherently inclined to favour the life of the mind, because that's what philosophy is. And who would challenge the view that indulging in nothing but drinking and lusting doesn't make for a great life? I'm not sure if any philosophers positively celebrate wild pleasure. The Marquis de Sade, perhaps.

In our somewhat Abrahamic context, we might see Epicurus and Aristotle and especially Plato as moralizers, but this might be an anachronism. It might be better to think of their criticisms of kinds of pleasure as pragmatic, as the criticism of ways of life that impede happiness, or flourishing, or finding the truth. In which case, maybe their similarity to the puritanical people to be found on forums like this is only apparent.

The only other country that deserves as much vitriol directed it's way is China — StreetlightX

Is China then a "shitty country filled with shitty people"?

It doesn't matter how you try to dress up your outburst. That you attempt a justification rather than just concede that it was an outburst is even worse. This is what makes you a bigot rather than just someone who lost it for a moment and said something bigoted.

The fact is, you attacked a people and tried to put yourself above them. You can't justify this with a critique of neoliberalism, any more than you can justify a hatred of Muslims with a critique of Islamism.

In any case America has been a tumor for the last 100 years, it's a shitty country filled with shitty people who have made the world a worse place to be for everyone. — StreetlightX

The good points you often make about American politics are entirely undermined by this vile bigotry. Just stop.

Good day to you sir.

I'm not sure what to say, TMF. I can't get my head around what you're saying at all, and I think I've said all I want to say, so maybe @Gnomon, @aylon or @tim wood could say something.

And for God's sake drop the "pyramid of life", and "game of evolution" phrases. I'm out :razz:

However, you mentioned that there's a microbe with a population of (2.8 to 3.0) × 10^27, a mind-boggling number that make humans look like they're on the verge of extinction. What this means is population, by itself, won't do the job in ensuring that humans retain their position at the top of the pyramid of life. Something's not right. — TheMadFool

This in particular is mind-bogglingly crazy. Seriously, unless someone can point out my own prejudices, this has gotta be one of the craziest thoughts I've ever seen written down on this forum.

It's just weird. Maybe I'm missing the point. You want a metric that reflects the dominance of human beings? Like, a number? Why not use other measures, such as intelligence, or "when a single species multiplies with little to no hindrance from predation and begins to expand their territory into all available ecological niches, sustains it to such a level that other organisms are outcompeted and driven to extinction." I mean, you already defined dominance so as to make humans come out on top, so what more do you need?

Don't you agree that technology, a product of intelligence, has made it possible for humans to expand their reach into different, even extreme habitats from the hot equatorial deserts to the cold arctic, at rates orders of magnitude greater than the much much slower process of evolution? I mean, if we had to depend on evolution to make the arctic landscape our home then it would take millions of years but we've, with technology, accomplished that in a fraction of that time. — TheMadFool

It's about more than just intelligence, but sure, I agree.

Intelligence, in my humble opinion, is an ability that any organism, with sufficient complexity, can acquire. Humans don't have copyright over intelligence and if it has served us well then, what prevents another organism from reaping similar benefits? — TheMadFool

It's weird to say that any organism can acquire intelligence, but otherwise, yes, other animals are intelligent, as I pointed out to you in my first post. Other species do indeed "reap similar benefits", if by that you mean some kind of evolutionary success. Every day I see hooded crows behaving intelligently, and they clearly dominate the bird life in the area I live in.

Allow me to define dominance: it occurs when a single species multiplies with little to no hindrance from predation and begins to expand their territory into all available ecological niches, sustains it to such a level that other organisms are outcompeted and driven to extinction.

Are humans not the dominant species on the planet? — TheMadFool

I'm undecided if this is an interesting or useful definition or question, but I'll answer yes for the sake of argument. What now?

In other words:

Okay, let's say that humans are the dominant species, and yes, we benefited very significantly from intelligence, and yes, other animals can be intelligent. What, then, is your next step?

I'm going to speculate as to why an intelligent person like you might think that the apparent dominance of human beings on Earth is evidence that intelligence is a general advantage in evolution.

I think you have a conception of evolution as a game with a winner, and from your point of view, humans have won the gold medal. Since humans have succeeded owing largely to their intelligence (this is fair), then intelligence must be an advantage in evolution.

But notice that this conclusion simply doesn't follow, just in terms of basic logic. All that follows is that intelligence was an advantage for us. Imagine: some cyanobacteria wipes out human beings (it's possible) and becomes, in your terms, the dominant organism on Earth. In its case, it had nothing to do with intelligence.

In any case, what is dominance, exactly? What makes humans dominant over cyanobacteria?

humans are at the top of the food chain — TheMadFool

They're not: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/where-do-humans-really-rank-on-the-food-chain-180948053/

Please think about it some more, and read at least some of the paper I quoted. And please name a fact that I have denied, as you claim.

What you've pointed out can be explained by saying that for humans, in the environment in which they evolved, intelligence was an advantage and increased at an unprecedented rate. You've made no argument for, and have given no evidence of, a general advantage across the tree of life.

@TheMadFool: Here's some discussion about the evolution of general intelligence that might shine some light on what I'm saying. The context is primates only, but it might give you an idea of how difficult it is to claim that intelligence is a general advantage.

Some species have larger brains than others, which, at least in primates, is associated with higher G [general intelligence]. Why did these species respond to domain-specific selection pressures with an increase in general intelligence, or cope with environmental unpredictability by increasing their brain and intelligence, rather than opting for alternative, domain-specific adaptations?

To answer these questions, it is important to keep in mind that the conditions under which large brains can evolve are to a substantial degree restricted by their costs (Isler & van Schaik 2014). Brains are energy-hungry organs that consume a large proportion of the energy available to an organism, particularly in growing immatures. Thus, natural selection more readily favors an increase in brain size when this leads to an increase in net energy intake, a reduction in its variance, or ideally both. Furthermore, a big brain slows down the organism’s development, which means that a species’ ability to slow down its life history is a fundamental precondition for its opportunity to evolve larger brain size. Accordingly, the life-history filter approach (van Schaik et al. 2012) shows that slowing down life history, and thus evolving a larger brain, is only possible for species that can increase adult survival and are not subject to unavoidable extrinsic mortality, such as high predation pressure. Isler and van Schaik (2014) have shown that such a cost perspective can explain a substantial amount of variation in brain size across primates, and that allomaternal care plays an important role in accommodating the costs associated with bigger brains (in particular, because food subsidies by allomothers help pay for the energetic costs of the growing immatures, and because of life-history consequences; see also Burkart 2017).

Natural selection thus evaluates the net fitness benefit of a bigger brain, which also takes the costs into account. The balance of benefits and costs is critically influenced by how efficiently an individual can translate brain tissue (or general cognitive potential) into survival-increasing innovations – that is, knowledge and skills. — The evolution of general intelligence, BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES 2017

https://www.eva.mpg.de/documents/Cambridge/Amici_Coexistance_BehBrainSci_2017_2476762.pdf

The paper begins from the common thought in biology that, far from being a general advantage, the presence of intelligence on Earth is a puzzle that needs to be explained.

Here's one (simplistic, semi-metaphorical) way to look at things. In a species with high general intelligence, evolution has offloaded the problem of survival to the individual and social behaviour of that species--it's up to them to solve their own problems using their general intelligence--but in most other species, niche-specific traits have evolved to cope with the environment, as if natural selection has solved the problems itself. Bears don't need to be intelligent enough to make warm clothing.

Thus, general intelligence confers advantages only in some cases.

I have never had a near death experience.

Surely this is the only mark to which people have any authority on the issue — The Opposite

Do you mean that nobody can have expertise in or knowledge of NDEs unless they have had one? That's a bit severe. Imagine applying that standard to psychology and psychiatry in general. It would mean that only schizophrenics could speak with authority on schizophrenia. But in fact, it's often precisely those who are not relying on their personal experience who contribute to our knowledge.

You need to put more on the table than flat assertions. — TheMadFool

This coming from the person who says that intelligence is a general evolutionary advantage, for which there is no evidence, for which there has been no argument (aside from pointing at the development of human civilization), and which doesn't even have any clear meaning in evolutionary biology (what is intelligence?).

Are you saying that if two organisms, one intelligent and the other not, they would both fare about the same in the game of survival? — TheMadFool

Aside from the basic meaninglessness of this question, as I've been saying, it depends. Look around at the species on Earth. The evidence is that intelligence is not required, certainly not always required, for success. On top of that, there are many ways in which intelligence could be a hindrance. My guess is that it would be a hindrance in most environments and for most organisms. I don't see how it could help bacteria or spiders. One problem: big brains are very costly to maintain.

Surely, at least to my knowledge, intelligence at any and all scales of existence is a clear advantage. An intelligent organism will be able to pick the best spots and the right time to do whatever it is they want to do unlike one that isn't intelligent, giving it an edge in the competition. — TheMadFool

This is plain wrong, and you need to think about evolution and biodiversity very differently to correct your misconceptions. I've tried telling you politely.

These days I wouldn't usually link to Quora, which has degenerated horribly over the past 5-10 years, but many of the answers here get across the general gist: Higher intelligence provides a clear evolutionary advantage, so why haven't more animals developed this?

As one of them says, "Evolution doesn't work that way."

By the way, I do believe that in an important way, humans are different in kind, i.e., that there is as you say a "discontinuity". But that's exactly why studying human beings becomes a different kind of endeavour from evolutionary biology.

Thanks.

1. Extinction is failure. Population is a good measure of evolutionary success.

2. Intelligence is, for certain, a plus point in survival. Humans are a success story measured by how we outnumber other species that exist at our scale. Intelligence is an asset in the game of survival.

3. The population of certain microbes exceeds by a factor of, sometimes, several millions the human. They are, most assuredly, successes too. But, they lack intelligence. — paraphrasing TheMadFool

Point 2 makes different claims. The first and last sentence are wrong, as I've been saying since my very first contribution to the discussion. What we can say is that intelligence has been an important part of human evolution and of the evolution of some other successful species. And if you want to talk about "our scale", (body size?), then sure, there's an argument for saying we're the most successful species of our approximate size and that this has largely been owing to our intelligence.

The paradox:

Population indicates brainless organisms are more successful than organisms with brains but we know, for certain, brains are the ultimate weapon - the thermonuclear warhead if you will - in the evolutionary race. In other words, population simplicter fails to capture the intelligence factor in the clear and obvious success of the human race. — TheMadFool

There is no paradox here. Brains are not "the ultimate weapon". There is no support for this claim in your argument or in biology. Maybe you can say that brains like ours are the ultimate weapon for animals like us, i.e., medium-large mammals, or whatever.

Population does fail to capture the success of human beings. You can measure success in different ways, and it has no strict definition in evolutionary biology, because evolution has no aims. You have not explained why you're troubled by the fact that population size doesn't reflect human success.

The proposed resolution:

Introduce another parameter which, together with population, will reflect the actual truth - the truth that

1. Humans are the most successful lifeforms on the planet

2. This success is entirely attributable to our intelligence — TheMadFool

So you want another measure of success, perhaps in combination with population, so as to prove (or reflect) what you already think is obvious, that humans are the most successful species on Earth? Why? Is it because you think this is lacking in evolutionary biology?

You can bring in variety of habitats, coverage of the planet, breeding success, and many other things to measure success. It's up to you. Have a look at ecological measures. But generally speaking, in merely evolutionary terms, humans are certainly not the most successful species on Earth. If you want, you can say that they're the most successful apes, or even mammals, or vertebrates. But it's arbitrary and has little if anything to do with evolutionary biology.

You may as well add, as your extra parameter, number of individuals of the species that have visited the moon, or number of books written, and you'll get the result you want: we win!*

However, I'll play your game. The extra parameter is ability to change its way of life in fundamental ways while its genome doesn't change or changes only in minor and unrelated ways, i.e., history. But this is just descriptive.

*Of course, you could just choose intelligence itself, and you've got what you need.

I'm honestly not sure if you're being honest, but...

To answer your questions, for the sake of argument let's say that evolutionary success can be measured by the number of individuals in a species, and let's call that number the population of that species. Now make your argument or point.

I note that you have also ignored Gnomon's central point, as you have done so far with mine.

I'm just puzzled by the fact though people continually speak of how humans, because of their intelligence, have come to dominate the planet, the actual numbers lead us to a different conclusion. — TheMadFool

The stuff you wrote before this is garbage, by the way. But here is where you make your point. So, if humans are to be considered as dominant on Earth, you'd expect them to be as abundant as, say, Prochlorococcus? That is crazy. Nothing you're saying hangs together or makes sense.

:up:

That could be interesting JC.

:gasp: :zip:

I would mainly just ask whether the near death journeys should be taken at face value for what they appear to represent or as something else? — Jack Cummins

We can believe the testimony, but suspend judgement on the interpretation, I would think.

Well, ok, but isn't that your bias? — Hippyhead

I'm not worried about that. If it's bias, I think it's one that's shared by philosophers and intellectuals in general. Of course, this can be questioned; or as you put it, can "be part of such a conversation, instead of the boundaries of such a conversation." But that's a conversation about the relative roles of personal experience versus familiarity with the literature, rather than about NDEs as such. Of course, nothing is stopping you from stunning people into awed silence with your insights in any thread you want. :cool:

To that my reply is simple: intelligence-wise, a dog is closer to a bird than either to humans. There's a gigantic discontinuity in the intelligence graph with only humans on one side and the rest of life on the other. This must count for something, right? — TheMadFool

I'm glad you're conceding that intelligence is not restricted to humans, as you claimed. Sure, human intelligence is immensely powerful. Does it count for something? In evolutionary terms, yes: it was an important part of our evolution. So what?

I'll take your word for it but anyone who claimed humans didn't gain from their more powerful brains would be lying to himself/herself as the case may be. Right? — TheMadFool

Yes they did gain, in the environment they evolved in and with the genetic endowment they had. Again, so what? Not all species require such intelligence to thrive.

I didn't know that the term "population" was not part of the biological terminology. What's the correct term then? Does it mean the same thing as "population"? — TheMadFool

I did not say that "population" is not part of biological terminology. Are you pretending that's what I said, or did you simply not read what I wrote? Either way, it won't do.

Back to the main issue...these numbers prove my point rather than anything to the contrary, no? — TheMadFool

What numbers? What point?

Perhaps there's nothing odd in all of this, nothing amiss with believing intelligence is an asset in the evolutionary game of survival for the simple reason that it did help humans in a very big way. — TheMadFool

Ok, so your point is that intelligence is an asset in evolution? As I say, it can be, for some organisms, in some environments. What reason do you have to go further?

This may contradict what I've been saying all along, I'm not sure, but the heart of the issue is the metric used in deciding evolutionary success. To my reckoning, as is evident from the OP and my other posts, success in evolution is measured by population size. This conforms with our intuitions of course; after all a population of zero means extinction which is just another word for failure, right? But, if we use population size, the problem is intelligence is no longer an attribute that's a deciding factor in evolution for the simple reason that humans don't make it to the top 10 or, quite possibly even to the top 100, list by population size. — TheMadFool

Why is this a problem?

what I'm quite certain about is that population size simpliciter doesn't cut it for measuring evolutionary success — TheMadFool

Why not? What do you regard as success in evolution?

I don't know what you're talking about. First, I was clear that my stated preferences were my preferences, and second, I don't think it's an unfair imposition to expect people to engage with research rather than speculate in ignorance like Jimmy down the pub.

Are NDEs scientifically explainable phenomenon? If they are, then why are we discussing an interesting, yet philosophically irrelevant, medical phenomenon in a philosophy forum? — Hanover

I don't think that scientifically explainable phenomena are philosophically irrelevant. There's a reason we have a category for "Interesting Stuff" that includes social sciences. It's partly because issues in these areas can be discussed philosophically.

I don't think so.

Also weighing in as a poster more than as a mod, I personally wouldn't find any of @Hanover's options interesting, even though he's right that they're legitimate philosophy. For me, the only things of interest would be some kind of anthropological enquiry, or some medical philosophy or medical sociology.

In anthropology, there are questions like: are NDEs universal across cultures? What role have NDEs played in the formation of supernatural beliefs and in the historical formation or maintenance of religious belief systems? What can the psychology of NDEs tell us about the relationship between culture and ways of describing and conceiving of consciousness?

Anyway, probably my main point is that there's been a lot of work on NDEs by various kinds of academics, and a discussion would be better off engaging with it to fend off unmoored speculation.

I kind of panicked as my post wasn't at all driven by Quining Qualia itself. I should have just brought it back to the text. — Kenosha Kid

It's really difficult to stick completely to exegesis when so much of the question of what Dennet might have been getting at requires some external 'rounding out' of what the issues are, so I sympathise with your posting dilemma. — Isaac

Though I haven't been contributing, I've been reading along and I have an opinion on this (Banno and fdrake may think differently but probably don't): so long as you've read the article and you're engaging with Dennett's views on qualia, then go for it. It doesn't have to be only exegesis. I posted a warning yesterday just because there were some people posting who had obviously not read the article and were here just to spout their anti-Dennett opinions.

Carry on :smile: