I have not been reading this thread. I will comment once I read them.

I am specifically thinking of reasons as motivations, not just intention in general. An animal might desire food, and they might even plan to some extent. But there is still something altogether different regarding this and what a language-bearing being such as a human does. It is this implication of this unique ability that I want to explore. — schopenhauer1

I used to wonder about the meaning of "instinct" - as in when people say, or experts say, "animals act on instinct, humans on reason". I thought, humans have instincts too. Don't we act on instinct, too?

But a sociology professor once made a point about the use of the word. When an expert say instinct, they mean a trait or behavior exhibited prior to intelligence. Of course, what is intelligence? Intelligence as reasoning -- a deliberative weighing of alternative options or decisions. Animal instincts do not rely on options. When you throw food on the ground for the animals, they do their instinct and grab, or even fight over, the food. They're not going to stop and divide evenly and fairly the piece of meat so everyone can eat. They don't feel shame either for wanting to take the whole piece. There's no shame in fighting over food among animals.

On the other hand, there are “….claims (….) delivered as “what actually is”.…”, serving as premises for the logical method following from them….

“…. That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt. For how is it possible that the faculty of cognition should be awakened into exercise otherwise than by means of objects which affect our senses, and partly of themselves produce representations, partly rouse our powers of understanding into activity, to compare to connect, or to separate these, and so to convert the raw material of our sensuous impressions into a knowledge of objects, which is called experience….”

….and this, with respect to his theory of knowledge alone, is not idealism in its strictest sense, insofar as external material reality is tacitly granted as a necessary condition. — Mww

:up: Thanks.

But your selective quotation of the passage then omits the grounds of Schopenhauer's 'defense of Kant', as he puts it. You then go to a peremptory dismissal: 'Obviously Kant doesn't know either'. But I don't think the 'sage of Konisburg' can be dismissed so easily. — Wayfarer

I did not omit on purpose the part where Schopenhauer's name appeared. There's nothing in that paragraph that would make it any stronger. Here it is:

Schopenhauer's defence of Kant on this score was [that] the objector has not understood to the very bottom the Kantian demonstration that time is one of the forms of our sensibility. The earth, say, as it was before there was life, is a field of empirical enquiry in which we have come to know a great deal; its reality is no more being denied than is the reality of perceived objects in the same room.

I'm not denying that time is a human construct -- at least I'm not arguing here against that notion. I don't care about that issue.

What I'm pointing out is that the claims of the idealists, such as Magee and Kant, are themselves delivered as "what actually is" about humans. So then my question is, why are Magee and Kant so privileged as to occupy a position wherein they could be both idealist and make claims like that. They're contradictory.

I think the point of the argument is the reference to Kant's view that time and space are fundamental intuitions of the mind - *not* things that exist in themselves. In other words, space and time are not purely objective in nature but are grounded in the observing mind. And this has also dawned upon at least some scientists. — Wayfarer

We've passed this. The point of our argument now is the fact that idealists can make claims as to the condition of our perception (we don't know the world out there, only the construct created by our mind), as to the anthropocentric nature of time and space, etc.

My question to you is, what do you make of the claims of the idealists? Are those knowledge? Are they truth? Why should we believe them when the realists could say, well, we may be only perceiving, but the causal relation of the world out there with our senses makes it clear that we know the world. There is this mechanism, that escapes our direct observation, but whose functioning makes it possible for us to see the sun and the stars in space. If this is not true knowledge, then what is? Why are we even talking about truth, knowledge, theories, the sage of Konisburg?

And oh, btw, gravity is not a mental construct.

In the spirit of tradition, I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

I'll favour his account over yours in this case. — Wayfarer

As someone who has 16.9K posts, you can do better than this to respond to my response to Magee's claim.
But you are maybe consistent in your claim if you also subscribe to idealism -- you don't know.

I have repeated a passage in Bryan Magee's 'Schopenhauer's Philosophy' many times here: — Wayfarer

No disrespect but I'm going to argue against the source. Magee is absentmindedly stupid in some important ways.
That's my impression of the passage you provided.
Get this:

'Everyone knows that the earth, and a fortiori the universe, existed for a long time before there were any living beings, and therefore any perceiving subjects. But according to Kant ... that is impossible.'

The claim that it is impossible that we know that the earth has existed for a long time even before the perceiving subjects is itself a claim about thing-in-itself, about what actually is. But Kant cannot make this claim because he doesn't know what actually is.

The point is, the whole of the empirical world in space and time is the creation of our understanding, which apprehends all the objects of empirical knowledge within it as being in some part of that space and at some part of that time:

If Magee endorses Kant's argument, then Magee cannot make this claim that it is what actually is in the world. The whole of the empirical world in space and time is the creation of our understanding?. Okay. Fine. But Magee is making this statement under the assumption of idealism. So he doesn't know either.

Twenty four responses. That might be enough to make some observations. — Banno

No it isn't if you're making an important comparison with the PhilPapers results.

I appreciate the citations and your reflections on (transcendental) idealism. Still, there's that confusion, or conflation, of ontology with epistemology, which plagues even Kant-Schopenhauer-Magee, that yields conceptual incoherences such as (e.g.) — 180 Proof

:100:

Yet Kant is an idealist. The structure is in yo head. So there are "real" facts, but their origin is not the external world. So that's why I said the "epistemological" part doesn't necessarily make a difference. It is needs both the epistemological and metaphysical for a complete picture. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I think we can't separate those two if looking at the poll.

Kant would say that there are true empirical statements, but still claims those statements are true for the human observer. — schopenhauer1

If Kant had said this, then he was just repeating what's already in his premise -- empirical statements are made by humans.

The danger of this poll is that it feeds the layperson’s impression that the existence of the external world is the central issue in philosophy. — Jamal

This is a good point. It's easy to mistake the poll as a poll about existence, instead of epistemology or knowledge.

I voted non-skeptical realism because this is the most rational choice for me. Idealism just have too many important unanswered points that resemble a catch-22 situation. The rest of the choices are non-issue for me.

Speaking of the large number of votes that the non-skeptical realism received at PhilPapers, this is as close as we could get from philosophical consensus, an issue which, in another thread, @jgill had pointed out -- philosophy had not achieved a consensus on something.

I'm not surprised that the votes went this way.

that reading him made on me back when I read Darwin: he didn't endorse the notion of selfish individualism being a leading driver of evolution. — javra

In other contexts Darwin did emphasise the fundamental importance of co-operation and altruistic behaviour as being essential to human flourishing. I don’t think he saw the SOF as a model for social development and co-operation which is however how it was adapted by Herbert Spencer and others through the ideas of eugenics. — Wayfarer

Okay, thank you for the information. At least I know I'm in good company.

I made a correction in an earlier comment about that: it was Alfred Russel Wallace, not Spencer himself who talked to and persuaded Darwin about "survival of the fittest". — Alkis Piskas

Noted.

I believe one has to roll up his sleeves ans start searching the web regarding the subject to found out details about that! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

:sweat: Yes, I know. That's why I'm thanking @javra and @Wayfarer for providing the passages. I was visiting a friend yesterday and couldn't isolate a good amount of time for this forum.

Anyway, we can find elsewhere that Spencer talked about this concept to Darwin and convinced him to use it instead of "natural selection". But this is trivial to me. — Alkis Piskas

It was coined by Herbert Spencer but Darwin approved it and included it in later editions of OoS - as OP says. — Wayfarer

May I ask what was the response of Darwin when Spencer talked to him about using the phrase. And if Darwin did agree to it, what did Darwin think of "survival of the fittest"? Because as others have already pointed out in this thread, the meaning, not just connotation of the phrase is one of competition and mercilessness. "I am not going to slow down so you could catch up. I'm going full force and if you're not able to catch up, oh well."

I have always understood the theory of "survival of the fittest" on a military/conquering way. Some authors, for example, defended the power of Roman Empire among Europe because how they showed to be the "fittest". — javi2541997

This is an example of how Darwin's natural selection had been misused. It really is about the species of animals.

Survival of the fittest was incorrectly attributed to Darwin's theory of evolution. This is a form of misrepresentation of his theory. Darwin would not have agreed to it, in my opinion.

So, that said:

1) Is this concept or principle a "realistic" one, i.e. does it correspond and fit our common reality about life? — Alkis Piskas

No it doesn't. We already know that adaptation due to mutation has been successful as shown in species and within the cultural context (i.e. humans). But also adaptation to changing environment has also been successful. Strategy is a very effective method of coping with the environment given what you have.

Does anyone know what the "official" name of the informal fallacy is? False attribution, or a kind of sleight of hand, maybe? — Hallucinogen

Strawman fallacy.

He then ends up thinking he's proving my wrong by just showing that there are scientific measurements of randomness. — Hallucinogen

Because you allowed it. Revisit the example. Your second comment should be confusion -- "why are you mentioning bla bla when my position is this..."
You should have repeated your original argument, not entertain a strawman.

So ultimately I’m telling a story that calls attention to (but does not explain) the difference between animal agency and selfhood, but which emphasizes the importance of the environment for both.

I don’t think it’s “immaterial”, but I don’t think it’s all about the brain, though having a brain is no doubt helpful. — Jamal

That works.

It was philosophy, not psychology or medicine, that improved our idea of self. Psychology introduced us to the idea of fear and mental illness, and medicine taught us about mortality. But it was philosophy that paved the way for contemplation of the universe, cognition of the non-physical, and articulation of reality and existence itself.

What has happened to fractals is similar to what happens to interesting concepts in math: everyone takes off in all kinds of directions with it. — jgill

:sweat: I think you're right.

Instead of a single function perhaps there should be an infinite sequence of functions that are iterated, one after the other. — jgill

In fractal dimensionality, as posited in the chaos theory in biochemistry, there is indeed an underlying foundation (as in stable foundation) that supports the nonlinear complexity. Researchers use fractal analysis in, say, fractal surface to show that we don't have to go to another methodologies entirely to accommodate unpredictability . (What these methodologies are is a separate discussion).

What do you think @jgill?

Merci.

1. Someone (call him Al) has parked his car on Avenue A (out of sight now) half an hour ago. Everything is normal, the car is still there, Al has a good memory. Does he know where his car is?

2. Every day, a certain percentage of cars gets stolen. Does Al know, right now, that his car has not been stolen and driven away since he parked it?

3. Meanwhile, in a parallel universe with a similar crime rate, Betty has parked her car on Avenue B half an hour ago. Betty is cognitively very similar to Al (just as good a memory, just as much confidence about the location of her car). Her car, unfortunately, was stolen and driven away. Does Betty, who believes that her car is on Avenue B where she parked it, know that her car is on Avenue B?

4. Having answered all three questions, would you like to revise your answer to any of them?

5. Why? — Ludwig V

Funny thing is, often reality is more accurate than fiction. In an ordinary conversation, we often pre-qualify our statements by saying -- "I left it there an hour ago, so I don't know if it's still there..." or "I saw your keys on the table at the conference hall when I left two hours ago, maybe someone took it to the front desk for lost item."

That (!) is a normal conversation.

But when we post a epistemelogic probing question, we want to highlight the idea that people are gullible about their own memory or knowledge of things so we post a leading question such as the above. My point is, this is not how we do things in actuality and we should give humans a lot of credit for their minds.

:up:

What I'm interested in is that the game shows that we intuitively reject the correct games-theoretical response, which is to accept any offer. — Banno

You are simplifying the game too much. There is a downside to being a push-over who will accept the tiniest offer -- future events would tend to perpetuate this inequity. You already accepted the theory's suggestion without your own input, thereby supporting the theory's suggestion to accept what was offered to you without question.

So why do smart people do things that interfere with getting the output they’re entitled to? — Ruminant

This settles it.

said in depth — jgill

No. I meant to say "with depth" -- meaning, with deeper understanding than the lack of careful thought on your part by saying over 2 millennia and no consensus. Not "in depth" where one demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of something, such as you and the two hundred theorems you proved.

I hope I've made this clear.

but from what you say a hindrance to philosophy. — jgill

Wrong again. I did not say this. Consensus is not a hindrance to philosophy, but if this is what you think is the pièce de résistance in philosophy; then you've missed the mark by a mile.

So, you are saying there has been consensus about the reality of numbers and whether math is created or discovered? — jgill

So, are you saying you did not get the gist of what I just said? Do you really need me to explain to you what I said in english? There are things you could say with depth about the subject besides "Over two millennia have passed with no consensus".

Will you be satisfied with a consensus, just to have an agreement? A population could have a consensus on something and they're still ignorant or wrong. I'd rather read philosophical writings having differing views, but well argued, than seeing a consensus for the sake of stopping all philosophical arguments.

The study of mathematics is not the same as the study of philosophy.

Over two millennia have passed with no consensus. — jgill

Jesus. No disrespect, but if this is all you could say about philosophy, then you don't fit in philosophy. People who summarize the thousands of philosophical posts in forums like this with a statement such as above, has not learned anything but cliché.

But divers and varied experiments have shown that, irrationally, this will result in your rejecting my offer, and us both receiving nothing. Offers of less than $2 (20%) are rejected. Most offers are around 40-50%.

Folk prefer to receive nothing rather than an amount considered too small.

What this shows is that ubiquitously, folk do not make decisions on the basis of rationally maximising their self-interest. Some other factor intervenes. — Banno

You're not seeing this right. I am with the person rejecting the offer. I would reject it, too.

"Self-interest" has a price tag, as in, people wouldn't do just about anything just to get "something". Because you're using me to gain an amount much higher than mine, then, I see that as unfair and I wouldn't agree to it, even if I'm "gaining" something out of it, too. The key is, how much am I helping you compared to what I'm getting.

You've forgotten capitalism already.

I had no idea that this was such a big confusion among some of you. I thought it was intuitive what an "object of perception" is. I took it for granted that this comes easy.

If I may try another attempt to dissuade you, let us use the example of a mound of millet. Assume you are a grain piled up with other thousand grains. You wouldn't be able to see the mound, but of course you can infer that a mound has been formed out of the thousands of you and other grains. You could, for example, use fractals to calculate that, one, a mound has formed, how big, and how high the mound is. Using logarithmic curve, maybe some volume, you could extrapolate that there is, indeed, a mound that exists out of the millions of grains.

But you never, ever, have come to the point that you are outside the mound perceiving it. Never.

Check please! — schopenhauer1

Don't forget to tip in north america.

The "workplace" (a social construct just like any other, but one whereby the majority of people garner their subsistence to maintain their material comforts and very survival), is often a killing floor for connecting what one does to anything broader, "mysteries of the universe" or otherwise. — schopenhauer1

Most workplaces exist for business-for-profit activities. Some fields are more privileged than others -- the arts, for example, in which artists can demonstrate their interpretation of the world through their arts. If people are inclined to actually include contemplation of the world into their working hours, and find cosmos meaning in what they do, they'd be disappointed.

We say things like "work-life balance" for a reason. It means, you put in the recommended hours a week to your work, then use the remaining hours for your personal activities.

We infer things and build up models, much of it based on indirect contact with effects. Why is inside inherently worse than outside? Toplogically---- — Bylaw

Here in lies the problem with Metaphysician Undercover's understanding of what is the "object of perception".

Inferring is not the same knowing as seeing the "object of perception", as MU said earlier in his post. Knowing through the object of perception means you actually use your 5 senses to get to know an object. You see a walking, talking person, you are perceiving that person as other person.

Yes, we know something about the universe. i.e. the totality of everything, but this did not come about because we saw the "whole universe" in front of us, but we inferred thousands of things about it, using our own sun, moon, stars.

Edit:

woud this mean one can't study the atmosphere (unlike a car), unless one can go outside the atmosphere. — Bylaw

En fait, we can. No one here is saying this. If you're introducing a new twist in this discussion, write that bit in a way that you don't attribute it to me.

A dead person has no 'interests'. — Vera Mont

Technically incorrect. A decedent's estate is just that. Which begs the question, the dead body should belong to the decedent's estate automatically, along with their assets (property and financial accounts) and income.

Unfortunately, speculation about the nature of existence and metaphysics, is not popular and remains a niche pursuit. — schopenhauer1

Philosophy was never a "popular" pursuit at any given time in history. But it started before atoms were discovered. Speculation, in the classical sense, changed once we had achieved advancements in all aspects of human activities.

But it doesn't mean we stopped all philosophical inquiries as to the nature of self and existence. Meaning and being, for example, are now being probed through the methodologies of logic, analytics, and even phenomenology -- which, of course, had stripped our philosophy off of its depth and the beauty of critiques.

I don't see your point. To see something does not require seeing the totality of it. I look at my car, and I see it. Having a motor, transmission and drive shaft are essential parts of the car, but I do not see them. Likewise, "the totality of everything" is essential to the universe, but I can still see the universe without seeing the totality of everything. We could say "a multitude of H2O molecules" is essential to being a body of water. But I see a body of water without seeing any molecules of H2O. Your argument clearly fails. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're forgetting one thing -- you can't step outside the universe to observe it. You are always inside the solar system, inside the galaxy, among the billions of solar systems and galaxies in a collection called the universe. You would need to get outside our solar system, then outside our galaxy, then outside the billions other galaxies, then outside the universe to do what you say you could do similar with your car.

The universe is an object of the senses. I see it anytime my eyes are open. That I don't see all of it doesn't mean that I don't see it. — Metaphysician Undercover

You don't really mean to say this. The universe is not an object of the senses. You don't actually see the totality of everything. The universe is not a place.

I know my friend from a very long time and he is not a player. Not that I know of his bedtime stories but yet again in the past 15 years or so, he has been truthful about almost everything. Now we all do have secrets and we should but in general view I think this guy was in Love. Maybe that faded away as we all discussed above on the way of getting from being in love to a longer commitment in life. — RBS

It has nothing to do with being a player. It wasn't "love".

My impression is, the philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematics are not well understood as a philosophy discipline and as a subject matter for philosophy forums. I mean, I think a lot of members don't quite know how to approach talking about science or mathematics philosophically, though they may have studied science and math as a practice and as academic courses, and are very good at them. But science and math have a different emphasis when it comes to philosophical discourse.

I think each being would define consciousness - would define everything that it encounters, learns and experiences - according to its own understanding. These beings could never communicate with one another, never share descriptions or concepts, so they would content with their own species-centric explanation of the world in which they live, just as vines and whales do. — Vera Mont

Yes, astute!

Hi there, Royal Bank of Scotland. — unenlightened

:grin: haha.

Their romance started from friendship. Their friendship was much more playful and sincere, they would irritate each other for amusement and then laugh about it. Their friendship developed into a romantic relationship, making it even more enjoyable to watch them interact. — RBS

The observer was wrong. Romantic attraction is neither of these. You feel it right away -- you may not be aware of what's happening, but it's never "friendship" that you feel.
Yes, I know. This is an unpopular view.

I believed that perhaps this was the true method of getting to know someone. — RBS

Yes, getting to know about someone. But it doesn't mean this is a good way if the closeness is about attraction.

A while later, I noticed that they were drifting apart until they parted their ways. I've reached a dead end, what went wrong? Why did it not sustain? — RBS

Because it was never a strong attraction. It was never love. It was convenient, friends with benefits, they're available to each other. Ask each of them. They'll tell you the truth.

Do you know when I fell in love with someone? I was f*cked. I cried, a few times. I cried for the possibility of it not working out, I cried for not being able to hold that person close to me. I worried that someone else might be in my place. It was a combination of emotions. Happy and sad and worried and longing.

In essence, if you don't contest the spoiled, how are they to ever recognise their actions as spoiled?

Its a reciprocal" give and take" scenario that keeps everyone in check. — Benj96

Yes, use this principle for people you care about. Others, don't give them the time of day.