• Happiness in the face of philosophical pessimism?
    The rationale is that a highly intelligent person is more likely (on account of being more intelligent) to see the complexity of life, more likely to see how complex problems in life are and thus, more likely to see how difficult it will be to solve them. — baker
    Yes, highly intelligent person can see more things about life, which will be too complex for a not so intelligent person, but this does not mean that he cannot solve them. In fact, and as I have already mentioned in this thread, his problem-solving ability is higher. (Remember: IQ is all about problem-solving.) Also a high IQ person has better understanding and can simplify things.

    “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” (Einstein))

    Life is much more simple for high- than for average-IQ people.

    However, a lot depends on the people one lives with and the resources one has available. — baker
    I agree.

    for a highly intelligent person the lack of social input and resources that meaningfully respond to their complex understanding of the world will have a negative effect — baker
    I cannot say. I have no such examples in mind.

    there can be no proof that high IQ is connected to unhappiness per se. — baker
    But it's you you have already mentioned to me earlier: "Superior IQs are associated with mental and physical disorders, research suggests", etc. In fact you have brought up 3 references! (Re: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/625535)

    Anyway, this was my position from start. So, there's no reason for talking about this subject anymore.
  • What is Change?
    ↪Bartricks

    Some say that we have a change when a thing has a property at one time that it does not have at another. — Bartricks
    This is certainly a very restrictive definition -- it doesn't cover the subject of change.
    Am\nyway, why do you care about what "some say"? There are some others who also "say" :smile: Then, you should not get into cyclic definitions. This is the job of bad dictionaries! :grin:

    In simple terms, change is "An act or process through which something becomes different" (Oxford LEXICO)

    I like this because it's a minimal definition and covers everything. Even the different position an electron can occupy around the nucleus of an atom from one moment to another.

    Heraclitus described "change" in a superb way with his "Everything flows" and "You cannot step in the same river twice". What else should one need to understand change?

    Change is movement. We can equally say that "change is movement in space" and "movement is change in space". This makes them synonyms, at least to that respect. Both are dynamic, even if we use the word "change" also as something static. Actually, there's no static change. Change is something continuous. A continuous movement. The water in a river that flows. Electrons in atoms that revolve around the nucleus of atoms.

    I suggest that we first detect change by way of sensation. — Bartricks
    OK, but I don't think that seeing change via sensation helps us a lot. It's a restrictive way of identifying change. OK, we can "feel" change. Then what?

    I see that from here on you are talking about the perception of change. And how we (through our mind) get conscious and interpret change. OK, but isn't it in the same way that we perceive anything in the physical universe? So, the sensation/perception of change doesn’t really gives us --or at least, adds-- any insight on change.

    Change takes place everywhere and all the time. We are influenced by it continuously. We can perceive it, think about it,, calculate it, co-act with it, use it, etc., in all sorts of ways.
  • Solution to the hard problem of consciousness
    The tree still exists — Cartuna
    No doubt about that. Yet, there are philosophers who doubt it. Thtat's why I said "classic philosophical question".
    I also agree with the rest of your arguments, except maybe the last two statements: "nature has no other way to respond mathematically. It are forced answers though.", which I don't quite understand.
  • Solution to the hard problem of consciousness
    This is counting as in: "accounting for quantity — Kenosha Kid
    I am afraid that you are twisting your words and/or adding meaning to them. This is totally different from what you said erlier "We count, but only because nature does" and on which I commented.
    I am not interested in "chasing" you. So, that's it for me.
  • Solution to the hard problem of consciousness
    We count, but only because nature does — Kenosha Kid
    Can you give an example of how nature counts?
  • Solution to the hard problem of consciousness
    people who think that without an observer, a computer simulation is just a bunch of pixels and sounds. I fall in the latter category. — RogueAI
    With or w/o an observer, the computer does exactly the same thing: it shows pixels and emits sounds. It is us who call this activity a "simulation". The same would happen if the computer was playing a video. It is us who call this activity a "video". However, even if there is an observer watching the computer playing a simulation, but who has no idea what the computer currently does, he could not call it "simulation".
    But again, this is too obvious.

    However, there is something else, more important, that makes the question "Do you think simulations can exist without anyone observing them?" and the whole issue of the "simiulation-observer" fall apart: In any case, a similation cannot and does not exist, with or w/o an obsever. It's not an object. It's a process. And processes do not exist. They are actions that take place.

    So, the problem of the "observer" can become meaningful only if "simulation" is replaced with some object, e.g. a tree. In this case, the question would be: "Does a tree exist without an observer?". Which can be recognized as a classic philosophical question.
  • Solution to the hard problem of consciousness
    Nature "knows" how much energy and momentum to give a body after collision. (Not really "knows", but is constrained thus.) — Kenosha Kid
    Well, nature has no mind and conscience so that it can know anything. So I can't see how else this "knows" can be interpreted. If you remove this feature and just say that the nature is "constrained by forces, etc.", then yes, it works for me. :smile:
  • Solution to the hard problem of consciousness
    Do you think simulations can exist without anyone observing them? — RogueAI
    I suppose you are referring to computer simulations ... I also suppose that such a simulation is "playing" right now w/o anyone watching (observing) it. Well, for one thing the simulation does not exist (by itself, as such), anyway. What exists is a computer "playing" a simulation and w/o knowing it plays a simulation. It is us who call it a "simulation". As TV can "play a program" w/o anyone watching. It is us you call it a program

    But this is too obvious.So you maybe mean something else?
  • Solution to the hard problem of consciousness
    I am guessing my usage of create is just different - bringing something into existence that did not exist before. — Flaw
    This is the way I also use the word myself. :smile:

    when the number 2 is displayed on an LED, it is no longer a concept of "2". This is by definition. — Flaw
    Right. It's an object (consisting of pixels on the LED). Only that the part of the calculator (machine) that does the computing does not even know that the number "2" is displayed, There's another part of the calculator that gets the result of the calculation and displays it on the LED. Moreover, the result "2" means aboslutely nothing to either the computing or the displaying parts of the machine. They are just constructed (H/W) and instructed (S/W and F/W) to do their jobs! :grin:

    So thanks for sharing. — Flaw
    Thank you too!
  • Solution to the hard problem of consciousness
    Concepts are thought and created by us. They are not created and exist by themselves or by some supernatural being.
    — Alkis Piskas
    True, but the referents of those concepts may well exist without us.     — Kenosha Kid
    True.

    The universe seems to count (conservation laws, quantum field theory) without a concept of mathematics. — Kenosha Kid
    Not true. The physical universe doesn't count. There's nothing "out there" that calculates. It's us who do. There are three trees in a garden, but the garden does not know about that. It doesn't even know it is a "garden" with trees. If we cut one of them, there will remain two trees. The garden will not say, "Oh my, they have cut one of my trees! Now I have only two!". Well, except maybe in poetry and storytelling! :smile:

    Physics and its laws (conservation laws, quantum field theory) do not exist without us. Physics is a science created by us in an attempt to understand how the physical universe "works" ("works", as a figure of speech, of course).

    Mathematics, even in its basic counting-on-fingers variety, was developed to describe features of our environment. It's generalised and abstract now, but in application still refers to quantities of actual things that exist — Kenosha Kid
    True, except one thing, if we want to be precise: Mathematics do not refer to quantities or anything else. It's created and used by us to refer to these things. :smile:
  • The Reason for Expressing Opinions
    ↪I like sushi

    OK. I think the issue has grown out of proportion. My fault.
  • Solution to the hard problem of consciousness
    This is not true. Numbers are not created by man. As you saw in my original post, "create" means to bring into existence. If man did not exist, the abstract concept of numbers would still exist, just not the word. — Flaw
    Concepts are thought and created by us. They are not created and exist by themselves or by some supernatural being.

    nobody believes that the number 2 gets "created" when we add 1 + 1 in a calculator — Flaw
    I do. And I believe other people do too. Number 2 is created (produced, calculated) by the calculator, which has been programmed by us to do that. Then it is created a second time, as it is displayed on a LED or other display.
    (BTW, do not abuse the words "nobody" and "everyone" so easily.)

    There isn't any "solution" proposed in my post. It was really meant to be click-bait. — Flaw
    Well, you succedded. I took the bait! :grin:

    I hope that clarifies my argument — Flaw
    True.
  • The Reason for Expressing Opinions
    I don't care enough about TPF to express a serious opinion about it — I like sushi
    But you still have an opinion about it! :smile: Also you cared enough to tell me your opinion about my comment! :smile: (I must not expect to get more after this! :smile:)

    Opinions are all philosophers have to share. As well, as people in forums. In fact, as everyone else in any discussion.

    they are anything but curiously serene about practically any thought they've ever had about anything — I like sushi
    There's a huge distance between being "serene" (which is something very difficult to achieve anyway) and being annoyed, angry and in distress, that you are talking about at the start of your topic.

    Maybe you you should give it some slack ... :smile:
  • A single Monism
    ↪khaled

    There are multiple "kinds" of monists from idealists, to physicalists to materialists, to God knows what else. I think they're all the same — khaled
    I fully agree. The same holds for Dualism. "Variations" exist because you cannot explain everything but just using a "label". This is why I personally avoid to use "-isms" and "-ists". They are boxes that limit a subject, attribute, idea, etc. The can be devoid of meaning. For example, what would be the meaning of saying "I am a nihilist"? Each person would get a different idea about me! Well, if they get one! :smile:

    On the other hand, these "-isms" help in just distinguishing between two attributes, ideas, etc. For example, if I say "This is a monistic view", I would be more or less clear what I mean, esp. if it's compared to a "dualistic view". But of course, this can be useful only in vague terms.

    So, yes, I agree that there should be a single "Monism". And "Dualism" and every other "-ism". They are philosophical concepts, and people, when using them in discussions, must think about the same thing and agree on their definitions. Otherwise, misunderstandings, confusions etc., get unnecessarily in the way.
  • The Reason for Expressing Opinions
    When we express an opinion or argument it is because we are annoyed/angry with something that causes us distress. — I like sushi
    Do you mean that if I ask your opinion about TPF, you would express it only if you get annoyed or angry? :smile:
  • Solution to the hard problem of consciousness
    ↪Flaw

    I now think that asking why consciousness exists is like asking why does the number 2 exists. — Flaw
    Totally different! Numbers are created by Man. Consciousness is not. Numbers are mathematical objects used to count, measure, etc. Consciousness is a state.

    our conscious experience is like asking how when we put 1 + 1 in the calculator, it creates* the number 2. — Flaw
    Totally different! We are asking how, calculate etc., using our mind. Conscious experience means that we are aware of that.

    What is everyone's thought on this subject? — Flaw
    I cannot be sure what the subject is after some point in your description of your topic. For one thing, I cannot see anything referring to "Solution to the hard problem of consciousness", which is the title of your topic. What kind of solution are you referring to or aiming at?
  • Happiness in the face of philosophical pessimism?
    Superior IQs are associated with mental and physical disorders, research suggests ... etc. — baker
    OK. I have not studied the subject. There must be certainly some truth in all that. But I am not interested in or going to study the subject. But I am willing and interested to hear about a rationale and examples in life --typical and enough of them-- that prove that high IQ is connected to unhappiness. For the moment. this sounds just a crazy idea, to me.

    And when I say that "rationality can never lead to mental illness" I mean it and I know it because I have studied the human mind quite a lot. I also explained why earlier in here. There are a lot of other factors that lead to mental illness.

    I have also explained why "an unethical person can never be happy.". As with mind, I have studied the subject of ethics quite extensively.
  • Happiness in the face of philosophical pessimism?
    Religiosity has been clearly linked with happiness and fulfillment, but religiosity also varies inversely with IQ. — Nicholas Mihaila
    Yes, I guess so. But religiosity --deep religious beliefs w/o rational support-- often works like a crutch. It helps people escape reality. I know also some people who avoid or even refuse to hear bad news or stories and want only positive things in their life. They are overoptimistic. They seem happy, but they aren't. These people can very easily turn into anger and hate when they are facing the truth. The truth that actually resides in them but it is covered, negated.

    At some point its shortcomings become so overwhelmingly obvious — Nicholas Mihaila
    I believe you refer to religiosity ...

    Those who possess very high IQ's are also more likely to be socially isolated and experience certain types of mental illness. — Nicholas Mihaila
    I don't think so. Rationality can never lead to mental illness. Irrattionality can, if it's not already present.
    This is why we are talking about "sanity" and "insanity", referring to mind.

    BTW, happiness has a lot to do with ethics. An unethical person can never be happy. Criminals are certainly not. Criminality is insanity. And ethics have to do with reason and logic. I am not talking about "constructed" morality, religious or other. But ethics based on rational foundations. (See "philosophy of ethics".)
  • Happiness in the face of philosophical pessimism?
    It just seems likely some inverse correlation with IQ and happiness beyond a certain level — Nicholas Mihaila
    I would be interested to know about that. Do you have some examples or rationale on that?
    Besides the examples I have, (I think that) I explained why a rational person has more chances to be happy than an irrational one. I didn't mention the reasons because I find it is something abovious if one examines what rationality is. We use logic to solve problems, undestand life, and do all sort of things that need analytical ability. Isn't someone who undestands a problem he has in a better position to solve it and get rid of it than someone who can't? Aren't intelligent people more imaginative, more humorous, have better skills in life, etc.? Aand aren't they considered more happy than those who don't have these qualities?

    You piqued my curiosity though. I'm gonna see if I can dig up some data to shed light on the subject. — Nicholas Mihaila
    It's an interesting subject, indeed.
  • Happiness in the face of philosophical pessimism?
    People with high IQ are certainly known as more happy.
    — Alkis Piskas
    Are you sure? I've never observed this. Genius IQ's in my family are normal, but so is depression. Maybe it's beneficial to an extent and then detrimental thereafter (in terms of achieving happiness).     — Nicholas Mihaila
    Yes, I am sure. But note that I have not made a research on the subject. What I said was from my own observations and evaluations of a lot of people I have known well through time and known personalities with high IQ (geniouses or not) the work and life of whom I know well and which can tell a lot about their emotional state.

    But even if I am mistaken in some cases, this is very far from waht you are stating! Never observed this??? Impossible! I have a high IQ and I am considered by people as well as by myself quite joyful! Now, you know about at least one case! :grin:

    And since you mentioned geniuses, do you believe that known personalities like Einstein, Feynman, Richard Dawkins, etc., about whose work, life, and peraonality we know enough well to judge, were/are unhappy?
  • The Internet is destroying democracy
    Can informed Democracy survive? — Tim3003
    I start from the end :smile:
    I would rather call it "Democracy of information", at least this is how I see it.
    The problem lies on where democracy starts and where it ends. Can anyone write and spread his shit in the world? Well, Internet certainly allows that. It is then up to the reader to distinguish between unreliable and reliable information. Internet itself provides for it as an "antidote": you can look in it for cross references and other ways of validating information. (BTW, this makes people more knowledgeable and clever. (Except of course the unintelligent, gullible, etc. who are "lost cases".)

    So, in the case of the Internet there are no limitations in democracy. Therefore democracy of the information cannot not depend on the Internet. Its survival instead will be threatened only if governments start to censor information in one or the other way.

    (BTW, since we are talking about Internet, there are more important issues to be handled than information, which anyway, one can chose what to read. These are e.g. spam, viruses, etc. and concern security.)
  • Happiness in the face of philosophical pessimism?
    The working term is defensive pessimism. — baker
    Of course, it can be defensive optimism, people lowering their expectations as a method of emotional protection (i.e. be prepared for the worst, etc.) But it can well be also consequential, based on reason, and indicate facing reality. For example, from the time when drugs (narcotics) started to be promoted in the 60's until today, we have been witnessing an enormous increase in their use and devastating effects. During these 70 years could --and can still-- people not be pessimistic about the evolution of events regarding drugs? Being optimistc on the subject --that this situation will be soon over, as if by magic or miracle, etc.-- means only turning a blind eye to and suppressing the problem. It goes the same with violence, suicides and all the plights our societies are going through today.

    As for psychologists and their research, well, I don't trust them. They run mainly on prototypes. They sail on shallow waters and build houses on shaky foundations.
  • Happiness in the face of philosophical pessimism?
    I've often styled myself a cheerful pessimist since my expectations are almost always worse than whatever actually happens. (Epictetus). This stance, however, is not optimism. A happy warrior is not an optimist (Marcus Aurelius) — 180 Proof
    :up:
  • Happiness in the face of philosophical pessimism?
    This is from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated." — Nicholas Mihaila
    Yes, I read that. And, by this occasion, I also found dozens of other definitions. Only https://www.yourdictionary.com/nihilism has 10 of them!
    Actually, it was my mistake to get involved in nihilism. I usually avoid talking about "-isms" and "-ists" because they are "boxed", "framed" concepts and usually mean anything or nothing.
    Sorry about that :sad:

    I'm not sure that rationality leads to happiness though. — Nicholas Mihaila
    Right. Rational people can be unhappy and irrational people happy. But as a rule, rationality indicates mental sanity and more control over the mind, in comparison to lack of logic/rational thinking and, even worse, irrationality. People with high IQ are certainly known as more happy. And there are a lot of reasons for that.

    the smartest people I've known are usually not the happiest. Schopenhauer was brilliant, but he was far from happy — Nicholas Mihaila
    I have read Schopenhauer way in the past. From what I remember, he was a pessimist, right? Well, he might be gifted with rational thinking, but most probably he fell into "traps". He must have erred at some point on the road. False assumptions can be created very easily even by thinking rationally. And we know where false assumptions can lead ...

    My conclusion: Pessimism does not entail unhappiness; neither optimism, happiness.
  • Only nature exists
    ↪Nothing

    why people say, man made things are unnatural ? — Nothing
    Who says that? The common expression for man made things is ... simply "man-made"! And this is to distinguish them from those found in nature, without having been processed by man.

    Since his origins, Man has been creating tools from elements of nature, which we call man-made. For example, I can use a piece of wood, which is cut or fallen from a tree, as a weapon. This would be called a "natural" object. But if sculpt it to make it sharp, straight, better to grasp, etc., this would be called a "tool". It will be a man-made object. The difference lies in the processing of the material.

    For example product from plastic, metal,.. computer keyboard: where did you get material ? from nature. — Nothing
    All these are called man-made objects, not unnatural.
    BTW, plastic does not come from nature! It's a synthetic material made from a wide range of organic polymers. It does not even belong to objects that man gets from nature and process them, like metal rings, which are man-made, because they cannot be found in nature as such. (A metal needs a lot of processing my man to become a ring.) A diamond, on the other hand, if it is processed lightly (cut, trimmed, polished) to fit a man-made ring, can be still called "natural". This, to differentiate it e.g. from an "imitation", a fake diamond, which is created by man.

    Likewise with synthetic vs natural vitamins and minerals. The first are processed in a laboratory, while the second are derived from plants.

    It all has to do with the amount and kind of processing ...
  • Argument against free will
    ↪Paul Michael

    Free will is the ability to choose between more than one viable option or action, in which the choice is “up to the chooser — Paul Michael
    It's very good that your brought up a definition of the key term of your topic. Really few do this!
    However, it doesn't seem to describe "free will", which has to do with the power of acting rather than an ability to choose that your description refers to, which does not even refer to "freedom of choice". Because I can be free to choose between two options but I might not be able to do that, i.e. I could not know what to choose.

    Free will has to do with action. An action that has been taken or not taken, a decision that has been made or not made. It can be judged only after one has acted or refused to act. On the other hand, freedom of choice is something existing before acting. We use to say, "He quit his job on his own will", "He does what his wife tells him to; he has no free will", etc.

    Free will has always to do with acting. And it implies no constraints. If I do or not do something because I am forced to it under a threat, I am not doing or refuse to do it with my own free will. If I do something without thinking or being fully aware of it, I do it without my free will.

    The reason I’m using this definition is because it seems to capture what most people mean by free will — Paul Michael
    I'm not sure that this is so, but if it is true, then you shouldn't call it "free will" but something else. Because this will affect your thesis, i.e. there's no free will. Which is totally wrong, based on simple logic as well as thousands of examples in life. (I gave already a couple of them.)

    Do you have free will regarding your thoughts? — Paul Michael
    My answer is sometimes yes, other times no. Thoughts can be produced both voluntarily and involuntarily.

    every thought is your next thought at some point in time. — Paul Michael
    Right. One thought can produce another one and so on, in a chain. And if I can't control this "flow", alas, I'm at the mercy of my subconscious! No control! I'm doomed! Fortunately though, I can get control on time, before I don't lose it! See, exerting my free will, I can stop it, start a new thread of thoughts or do something else. All that, thanks to my free will! You see, one thought producing another can be done completely consciously, as in producing arguments in a discussion, solving a Math problem, proving a hypothesis, and so one. This is actually what I'm actually doing right now. I'm not dictated by external force, spirit or some magic power what to write. I consciously construct every thought that I am noting down by typing it. The whole process is totally controllable and based on free will.

    It's not the first time that I come across a thesis postulating that there is no (actually) free will. And it is so strange, because life is plently of examples of free will. It is something almost self-evident So, I guess it all has to do with wrong definitions ...
  • The Problem of Injustice
    ...
  • Happiness in the face of philosophical pessimism?
    ↪Nicholas Mihaila

    I’ve basically become a nihilist over the years — Nicholas Mihaila
    I don't know in what sense you use the term "nihilist" and why do you need to put a label on you, which I am quite sure cannot define you. "Labels" have this drawback: they cannot define people! They can only give an idea, and in most cases quite vague one, about them.
    For instance, a simple definition of "nihilism" --i.e. w/o referring to a philosophical research-- is "The rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless". This is of course too general and it insufficient to characterize someone in any way. It's just a philosophical position. But even if you expand this definition and make it more specific, we still cannot create a "nihilist" model that fits everyone. Besides, you don't need to use such a label (or any other for that matter), because you are describing how you feel and think quite clearly, I believe. And I also believe that it is only on that base that we can tackle the subject of your topic effectively.

    It’s not a true nihilism in the sense that I believe everything to be completely baseless." — Nicholas Mihaila
    This is not what nihilism is, based on the definition I provided above. But I don’t think any other definition will claim that nihilism claims that "everything is baseless". Which, BTW, you nagate by saying later: "I see almost everything as completely pointless".

    Most of the philosophers and people in general, believe that life has no meaning, or at best they cannot find what the meaning of life is. (Exceptions are deeply religious and mystical people who believe that life has a purpose. Different purpose for each one, of course! :grin:)
    Therefore, they should ba all called nihilists! Neither does it make them unhappy. I don't believe that life itself has a purpose of itself, and I am not an unhappy person!

    Life has the purpose that you give to it.

    Now, from life having no purpose in itself to thinking about everything as pointless, there's a huge distance. Anyway, I don't believe that you think that way. For example, you say "I believe in a universal morality" and "evolution has crafted a more-or-less objective moral system where honesty and integrity are praised and dishonesty, etc. are decried." That's huge! There are not many people who believe this/ Most of the people believe that morality is subjective. And this alone can make them unhappy! Believing in universal and objective values, maybe do not give life a meaning but make it stronger, more solid. Such values are based on logic (rational thinking), which is the best tool that Man disposes and which makes them mentally healthy human beings. This must be never underestimated! A rational being cannot be unhappy. Only emotions and lack of rationality make us unhappy. This is too evident, isn't it?
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    Physical or non-physical, that would be a prior cause — Philosophim
    First, I am talking about the "first cause", not any "prior cause". Then, I assumed that there cannot be a physical thing that is cause of itself, which you have just accepted. Therefore, it must be non-physical. It doesn't have to be "God". I said "God, Supreme Being, Universal Consciousness, etc.". Its nature is not important here.

    Physical and non-physical cannot be put in the same "basket". That's why I have excluded cause-and-effect chains regarding non-physical things (e.g. thoughts, ideas, etc.), otherwise the discussion becomes too difficult to handle. We must first establish the "first cause" iof the physical universe. We could then maybe talk also about non-physical, virtual, etc. universes ...
  • Presenting, Developing and Defending my Views on Morality
    what if the bad guy wasn't trying to kill the other guy? — T Clark
    But the example talks about a serial killer ... Anyway, I get what you mean (outside the example given): 'A' wants to harm 'B' but not severely, and 'B' tries to prevent the harm or responds to the harm done more severely, even killing 'A'. Well, I think this case belongs to the subject of "justifiable" actions that are judged in courts and elsewhere. But I think this gets outside the scope of this discussion, doesn't it?
  • Presenting, Developing and Defending my Views on Morality
    there is some point where actions trying to protect survival go too far. Being paranoid or overprotective for example. — Hello Human
    Of course. But these are extreme cases. There are always extreme cases in everything. Moreover, in this case, we cannot speak about morality when the person is mentally ill or cannot distinguish right from wrong.
  • Presenting, Developing and Defending my Views on Morality
    what you call survival has a way of seeping out and attaching itself to people other than ourselves by evolution or culture I guess — T Clark
    I'm not sure what do mean exactly, but if you mean that I have only talked about our own survival, it isn't so. I have included "others" in a very clear manner, as follows (quoting): "Now, since we are talking about morality, which has mainly a social connotation, we should also expand "survival" in a "spherical" way, to include persons around us -- from family, to friends to larger groups, to society, to humanity -- and say that an action is as moral as it is good for the greatest part of the people in the mentioned areas or "spheres" of reference."
  • Presenting, Developing and Defending my Views on Morality
    Now, who is most in the wrong here ?
    — Hello Human
    This is a silly example. I don't know why you're trying so hard. You don't have to agree with me.     — T Clark
    I believe that it is a very good example. (@Hello Human :up:) The main difference between the two is their intention. The criminal intends to harm the victim. So his action is against surviva. And this makes it immoral. On the other hand, the victim, in trying to defend himself, intends to protect survival. And this cannot make his action immoral. Huge difference!
  • Presenting, Developing and Defending my Views on Morality
    But I think we have to go beyond just survival. Of course, survival is important, you can't do anything if you're dead after all. Human beings also care about having good relationships with other beings for example. — Hello Human
    Exactly. That's why I said: "From here, we can expand the term "survival" in a qualitative manner, from a bare living state to a flourishing state: well-beingness, happiness and all that which are desirable for almost every human being." This encompasses almost everything that is "good" for everyone. And vice versa: everything that is "good" helps people's survival. E.g. "Good relationships" that you mention, help people in difficult situations in their life and in general enhance their life (survival).

    One can see survival as a sphere, which is expanding and contracting on a constant basis. When it is expanding, it grows towards a maximum potential. When it is contacting it is reduced to a minimum potential. When it is totally contracted, it becomes just a "point" (the center), with no dimensions, that is, nothing, no life. You can feel this expansion and contraction: When you are healthy and happy, this sphere is much expanded and you feel that you are winning, that you can conquer the world, that the whole world is yours. When you are sick or sad, you feel that you have lost a part of that world and that the world around and inside you has shrunk. Too much sorrow leads to death. All this is survival.
  • A first cause is logically necessary
    ↪Philosophim

    I am back after some pondering on the subject ...

    First, we must select a "world", a "universe" to work on the premise "A first cause is logically necessary": the physical universe (nature) or the non-physical universe (a "personal" universe existing in our minds), Yes, the second one is usually neglected, but it exists; it's another kind of "universe" : E.g. a thought can produce another thought, a logical statement can produce another one, etc. All these are non-physical, since they exist in our minds. But since this second universe needs be well and clearly define before working on it, and this is not something easy, I will restrict the application of the premise on the physical universe, the material world. For now, at least.

    So, let's start by assuming that (something cannot be the cause of itself. (This might be argued, but I can't see how!) So, there must exist a cause for that thing to occur, to exist. This, apparently can go back to infinity, right? So, the question is "Can such an infinity of cause and effect relationships exist?" If yes, the premise is of course refuted and we don't have to speak about it anymore!
    But anyway, the impossibility of such an infinity is more logical, isn't it? So let's accept this.

    Now, if the infinity of cause and effect is impossible, there must be a "first cause" from which all starts, right? However, since we said that nothing can be the cause of itself in the physical universe, that cause must necessarily be non-physical, right? A non-physical entity that is not itself created, but which always existed and is the first cause of everything --physical and non-physical. Right? This leads us to concepts like God, Supreme Being, Universal Consciousness, etc. I believe that it does not matter how we name it, since one way or another we don't --and most probably, we cannot-- know how it works! :smile:

    This is as far as I can personally reason on the subject. So, I will look for and present excerpts on the subject from standard references and known philosophers of the past.

    1) "First cause, in philosophy, the self-created being (i.e., God) to which every chain of causes must ultimately go back.
    (https://www.britannica.com/topic/first-cause)

    2) "First Cause is term introduced by Aristotle and used in philosophy and theology. Aristotle noted that things in nature are caused and that these causes in nature exist in a chain, stretching backward."
    "There must be a First Cause because such causal chains cannot be infinite in length."
    "Aristotle referred to the First Cause also as the "Prime Mover" that is a deity of "pure form" without any potentiality"
    (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/First_Cause)

    3) "The 'first cause argument' is an argument for the existence of God associated with St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)."
    "The first cause argument is based around cause and effect. The idea is that everything that exists has something that caused it, there is nothing in our world that came from nothing."
    "Aquinas argued that our world works in the same way. Someone or something must have caused the world to exist. The cause is God, the effect is the world."
    "Aquinas stated that this cause (which is outside our world) is the first cause - that is, the one that started everything."
    (https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zv2fgwx/revision/2)
  • The Problem of Injustice
    ↪ToothyMaw

    If you are not willing to reply to responses from people on your topic, you should say so.
    Otherwise, you have still a chance: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/620414 (5 days ago)
  • Presenting, Developing and Defending my Views on Morality
    ↪Hello Human

    Nice topic!

    How can we establish an objective morality if our purpose is subjective? — Hello Human
    (Note: I will use the term "morality" as it is used in the description of the topic, although I personally prefer and normally use the term "ethics".)
    Our personal purposes, that is, the purposes we have set and/or accepted in life for ourselves are indeed subjective and may be connected to our morality, but they cannot define or establish a general, objective morality, that is, one that can be applied to all human beings. We can establish an objective morality only by reason. So, we must first set the common denominator, the common and basic purpose for all kinds of life: survival. Life wants to survive. We can assume and accept this as a fact. So, we can use it as our basis for morality. And since this is based on common reasoning, we can safely say that it is generally objective. Therefore, we can easily set as "good" and "right" that which is pro-survival --that helps and promotes survival-- and "bad" or "wrong" that which is against survival --that hinders or reduces survival.

    From here, we can expand the term "survival" in a qualitative manner, from a bare living state to a flourishing state: well-beingness, happiness and all that which are desirable for almost every human being.

    Now, since we are talking about morality, which has mainly a social connotation, we should also expand "survival" in a "spherical" way, to include persons around us -- from family, to friends to larger groups, to society, to humanity-- and say that an action is as moral as it is good for the greatest part of the people in the mentioned areas or "spheres" of reference.

    we must have a way to measure how close a person is to flourishing, which is happiness, more specifically how happy a person feels about their actions and identity. — Hello Human
    Well, "measuring" becomes a little too specific and quite subjective. It is not easy even for the person to measure these things for himself. But of course, one can have a rough idea, say, "On a scale of 1 to 10 ..." (as we do for pain! :smile:)

    Now one might argue that I only considered the subjective condition for morality, but not the objective one, which is Kant's first formulation — Hello Human
    Well, OK, but I don't think we need Kant's advice on that subject, although it's good to know his views ...

    In order to flourish while respecting or promoting the flourishing of others, some qualities are useful. Those qualities are commonly called virtues. — Hello Human
    Right. I already talked about "others" earlier.
  • Parmenides, general discussion
    Where do you base this assumption-statement on?
    — Alkis Piskas
    Thales. Water.     — frank
    Have you made this up right now? Because you have not mentioned Thales in your description. It comes after a comment of mine. Anyway, you made it worse, because Thales is not connected to ontology. Parmenides, is. (Whom you did mention.)

    Much less can we talk about ontology and science, which have no relation whatsoever.
    — Alkis Piskas
    This is not true.     — frank
    I can't compete with this! :smile:
  • Parmenides, general discussion
    ↪frank

    Western philosophy began with ontology. — frank
    Where do you base this assumption-statement on?

    It was a mighty turn away from Homeric myth to secular explanations, if not yet what we would recognize as science. — frank
    From Homeric myth to what we know as Western philosophy a lot of things have happened. One cannot way that ontology was a (sudden) turn away or a separation or whatever from Homeric myth. They are two totally different worlds.
    Much less can we talk about ontology and science, which have no relation whatsoever. If an ancient philosopher was closer to science, that would be Thales of Miletus, who is regarded as the father of Science. And he is also regards by most people as the philosopher with whom the Western philosophy has begun.

    Parmenides was indeed one of the first philosophers who had ontological views on nature, but he had other fishes to fry, nothing to do with science neither have I found a reference talking about him or his ontology as the origin of Western philosophy.

    The above are two simple ramarks I wanted to make on the introduction of the topic.
    As for studying Parmenides' and Zenos' ideas to a point where I can talk responsibly about them, this will take quite long. So, unfortunately I cannot contribute to that at this point.
  • The Problem of Injustice
    ↪ToothyMaw

    God potentially allows injustices despite being omnibenevolent — ToothyMaw
    1) What "God"? One described by religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism ...)? Or an imaginary, constructed, ideal God?
    2) The term and attribute "omnibenevolent" has been created by Man, and most probably Christians. It does not exist even in the Bible, which provides just testimonies of God's goodness.
    "Omnibenevolent means all-loving. According to Christian teaching, God proved his all-loving nature by sacrificing his only son, Jesus, to make up for humankind's sins. This sacrifice allowed humans the opportunity to have eternal life with God in Heaven." (Nature of God in Christianity, https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zf626yc/revision/1)
    So, the above assumption is based on an arbitrary, imagined, constructed term-attribute. Therefore, it can be only applied to an imaginary, constructed, ideal God. And the whole discussion must start and be based on this assumption: "Assume that God is omnibenevolent." But it's not only that ...

    (1) If god existed he would not allow injustices to occurt — ToothyMaw
    Who and how can one tell what is "unjust"?
    From Oxford LEXICO we get the following chain of definitions:
    Injustice: "Lack of fairness or justice" -> Justice: "Just behavior or treatmen"t -> Just: "Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair".

    So first of all, we must first establish, in human terms, that something that has occurred is not morally right. This of course depends on the established moral rules that apply to the case. And different cultures have their own rules of morality. So we have to limit "injustice" in our own culture or society. But even this is not so easy. Even within our own society there exist groups that have their own moral rules. Even Mafia has --e.g. "loyalty" is at the top of the list. Even families establish their own moral rules that apply only within them. Even each person has his own moral rules.

    So, evidently it is not at all easy to tell what is moral and what is not. How can we then know what "injustice" means to "God" --whatever "God"-- if he has moral rules and what they are?

    But it's not only this. We don't know if "God" is interested in human injustice and is willing to interfere. A lot say that God has given Man the freedom of will. If this is true, why should He interfere with human affairs and life in general? We don't know even if "God" is keeping a balance in life and the whole the universe and how He does that.
Home » Alkis Piskas