I suppose we could also be totally independent of their history. So, we're an experiment to see what would happen if the laws of physics were completely different from that of the creator's universe. In that case, the creators might not even be human...

I think Nick Bostrom was just imagining our future..... He started with the idea that it is very likely that our descendants Will be able to create a universe w/ conscious beings.

Ancestors, rather. Unless the idea is that they invented time travel, too. — Terrapin Station

I think descendants is correct. In that case, we are imaginary ancestors.. Or computer generated versions of the creator's ancestors.

Imagine we are able to create a computer generated universe complete with conscious beings. Our scientists decide to create a reality to investigate what would happen if our history was somewhat different. So, we create a world in which our ancestors (we are their descendants) live their lives over again. So, we, the descendants, create a universe in which our (or at least versions of our) ancestors live.

"But why would we believe that the universe is a computer or computer program?" — Terrapin Station

NIck Bostrom makes an intriguing argument.

Why can't the world be a computer program? I can comprehend the idea that this universe is code running on a program on a physical computer- one created by our descendants. There is speculation that we will ourselves be able to create conscious beings in a computer program w/in 100 years or so.

I can't quite wrap my head around the concept that the universe IS a computer.

That's one of the reasons I frequent this place. I don't have people I regularly interact with offline to discuss anything philosophical with. — Terrapin Station

That's about where I'm at. I'd like to change it, if possible.

Come to think of it, I do know what I'd suggest people read, if they want to know about philosophy. I'd still like to at least be able to mention the topic, and then field the assumptions that people tend to make, and talk about philosophy in a way that makes it interesting to someone who may not know much about it.

meh... I'm overthinking it.

Albert Camus is clearly the most prominent figure that comes to mind. His ability to put philosophy into an easily digestible format is a skill to envy by both philosophers and writers. — Jeremiah

But Camus is writing about a very specific philosophical idea.. namely, absurdism. I'm thinking about an overview of just what philosophy even is.

I read Dostoyevsky back when I didn't care a whit about philosophy. He's a great writer, but I read him and remained ignorant about even the basics of philosophy.

My suggestion is that the problem is most likely a communication barrier. — Jeremiah

Can you recommend some philosophers who have overcome this barrier?

I know some like to think it is an exclusive club, but it has spread into most academics disciplines. — Jeremiah

I find that most people just find it off-putting, because they don't quite get it.

Relax it was a joke. — Jeremiah

Didn't see the question coming? In reality, I am relaxed. I honestly wondered what it was that you deemed important for us to know.

"Do you talk about Philosophy w/ people who don't know much about it?"

I post on these forums don't I?

I know that is horrible, but the set up was too good to resist. — Jeremiah

What is it that you know about philosophy, that others on these forums don't?

@agustino
I was referring to this:

He clearly for example doesn't understand that Mohammed is a prophet, and Allah is the God, and so forth. He doesn't understand the differences because of his lack of knowledge and culture. — Agustino

were given until I, the great darthbarracuda, laid waste to the terrain and enlightened everyone with my unquestionably superior view, that philosophy is rational speculation into the nature of the world and humanity's relationship to it. — darthbarracuda

I like to think it's mostly about critical thinking and thinking about the way we think...(but, yeah.... "rational speculation into the nature of the world and humanity's relationship to it" sounds pretty good) and I don't want to lecture, either.

Obviously his lack of culture shows - but he makes exactly the same point that many atheists make for not believing - many big headed atheists with a lot more refinement than him. He clearly for example doesn't understand that Mohammed is a prophet, and Allah is the God, and so forth. He doesn't understand the differences because of his lack of knowledge and culture. And yet he makes a fair point - if there are so many options to believe one can't be expected to know what is true anymore, — Agustino

But did he really not understand? Did you give him the chance to explain himself?

As well they should be. — Bitter Crank

I do like port. And Mike's Hard Lemonade. And Mudslides... and Long Island Iced tea. I drank a bottle of Angry Orchard hard cider the other night.

if you were asked to explain philosophy to someone who didn't know much about it... where would you start?

I guess I could hang out in a bar where other people are drinking.. but I've found that drinkers are usually suspicious of non-drinkers.

I do like Camus. (but I'm a long way from explaining that one to my coffee group!)

LOL. I hate beer.

Philosophy has failed, miserably. Skepticism has won; by a rather large margin. — lambda

Huh? Philosophy in general has failed, but a form of philosophy known as Skepticism has won?

I don't know if I'd call it a favorite.. but I do find this Nietzsche quote to be intriguing.

To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities - I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not - that one endures."
(The Will to Power, p 481) — Nietzsche

But you're talking about the future, in the case of the examples you used. I thought the OP was about things already in existence.

But, even then. There probably do exist film scripts, music, etc.. that I couldn't conceive of, and yet they do exist.

Another thing to consider: in the instances above, the things were conceived of before they were created (I think). I may not have conceived of unknown film scripts, etc before I was aware of their existence... but Someone did conceive of them, and Then created them.

There's a difference between being conceivable and being conceived, and so B. doesn't follow. — Michael

This suggests that you agree that there could be things that exist, which haven't yet been conceived of (but Could eventually be conceived of).

4. Most importantly of all, I'd like you to give me some sort of justification for thinking "1 makes more sense to me." — maplestreet

It's purely intuition. I suspect most people would agree. If someone doesn't agree, then they would have to make an argument in defense of the assertions I mentioned.

A. in order for something to exist, it must be conceivable. B.We haven't conceived of it, therefore, it can't exist.

There has already been an example. Before we conceived of the idea of a planet that rained jemstones, that planet did exist. I suppose we could quibble about whether or not that planet Could have been conceived of, Before it was actually discovered.

I interpret the OP to be asking, "Could there exist something that could never have been conceived of(prior to its discovery)?"

It seems to me that you are making the assertion, "If something Is discovered, Then it Was conceivable." I'm saying that just because something was discovered, it doesn't follow that anyone would have ever conceived of said thing, before it was discovered.

It's almost as if you are suggesting that no one has ever been surprised. What is surprise, if not the feeling "holy cow! I had no idea! "?

I can think of this in one of 2 ways.

1. Yes. There does exist something (if it exists, it is possible) that hasn't been conceived of.
2. No. This implies the assertions A. that in order for something to exist, it must be conceivable, and of course.. B. We haven't conceived of it, therefore, it can't exist.

1 makes more sense to me.

In sum, it's a nice little trick that I'm surprised hasn't been employed more often. "Oh no, I don't have to prove that Big Foot exists, because he's existence itself, you see, so he naturally must exist!" — Thorongil

The more I read about ancient philosophy and the history of Christianity, the more I tend to reject the "nice little trick" judgment.

It seems to me that people were/are honestly trying to figure out how it is that facts (or a reality independent of mind, or objectivity, or mathematics) or anything for that matter, could exist. Plato's forms (I was recently reminded that Nietzsche called Christianity, "Platonism for the masses") were a pretty good idea, as was Aristotle's Prime Mover... and people expanded upon the ideas.

Yep... Self-help books (3, as far as I can tell) promoting Stoicism.

Holiday seemed proud of his decision to use Sasha Grey for marketing at American Apparel.. he is also promoting his Growth Hacker Marketing.

LOL. From the article in Sports Illustrated, referring to The Obstacle is the Way.

The book does contain some sports examples. Holiday wrote about Nick Saban, the Alabama football coach, for instance, and his famous process, how he refused to be distracted by what might happen in the future, or what had happened in the past. He focused on the next game, the next day, the next hour. He didn’t get emotional, except in press conferences, when yelling at reporters. He focused on what mattered, what he could control.

That’s stoicism.

Nick Saban is a stoic.

Hmmm. Well, as far as Stoicism is concerned, I get the idea that Stoics can flourish wherever they happen to find themselves. Stoics should also know themselves (Socrates is the closest thing to a Stoic sage, and he is held up as an example), and listen to their Daimon. If your Daimon tells you, "I want to pursue X", then you should pursue X.

Perhaps I'll keep my mind open for a while... He does say in this interview that he wrote his book Trust Me I'm Lying, because he didn't like what was going on (media manipulation) and he wanted to expose it. At about 23 minutes, "Why would I write a book about manipulation if I wanted to keep doing it?"

I heard him speak in person at Stoicon.. and he was very smooth and believable. I'll give him that. I just wonder if he is also trustworthy and authentic. What I'm reading about him gives me pause. The message I'm getting so far is, "Trust me... I'm an honest liar and manipulator."

He wrote a popular book called The Obstacle is the Way.

Sean Carroll makes a good case for MWI. It might even turn out to be the case that there are multiple universes. Time will tell.

I won't say, "I believe it's true." But, the concept does appear to have some usefulness.

Aristotle is interesting, and the fact that societies have laws is interesting, but does it have anything to do with the OP?
Perhaps your answer is, "because it's good for society?"

Perhaps I misunderstood the question. Does the OP want to know why societies have laws?

And laws obviously don't force people not to break them. People are free to break the law... last time I checked.

"It's wrong to steal, therefore, one ought not steal." — dukkha

Isn't it rather the case that, "doing X hurts people... I don't want to hurt people, therefore I have valid reasons and/or an aversion, not to do X?"

You might also enjoy this thread.

Why ought one be good? Perhaps one ought to be good for the same reasons that one ought to practice good math skills.... No one can force anyone to be good at math, and no one can force anyone else to be good.

I'm assuming that no one can force anyone to do anything.

Why wouldn't you like that? — Terrapin Station

I just wouldn't.

They might have ridiculed the men at meets. They might have organized a PR offensive. — Bitter Crank

I see no reason to make this about what women can or can't handle.

I know I wouldn't like a group of women describing me in that way. And I am aware it does happen- it's not as if women are faultless in that respect. I'd be more willing to accept a general rule like: both sexes have a responsibility to treat sex with respect. The behavior just shows a profound disrespect for people.

Jules Evans spoke at Stoicon (Stoicism as a Wellbeing Intervention in the Workplace, Prisons and Mental Health Charities). It was the first time I had encountered him... I was impressed.

How did you become acquainted with him?

I don't think of stoicism as a system, so much as a set of recommended exercises; exercises designed to free you of attachments to things, situations and people, and, indeed, yourself. I tend to think of the value of such exercises as consisting in the creative ways in which you can use them to produce real transformations in your ways of being and thinking.

I think of existentialism as the philosophy that eschews generalities; that sees beyond 'what one does', beyond the kinds of sets of general rules that we find ready-formulated for all kinds of occasions. For me, existentialism is also concerned with living in the light of acknowledgement that life is an impenetrable mystery, and that the standpoints we customarily adopt are always without exception exercises of faith, and are often little more than flimsy shields against anxiety.

I think the existential trick par excellence is to fully commit ourselves to an all-inclusive worldview which is large enough to accomodate inconsistency and even contradiction which does not satisfy our neurotic need for tidiness and does not ameliorate our anxieties and our doubts, but amplifies them into creative forces so that we can grow. (Here I am not referring to anxiety and doubt as it is commonly understood; that is I don't mean to say that one should cultivate skepticism and feed one's insecurities, rather the opposite). So, I don't think the essence of existentialism consists in "finding ways to enjoy our lives", but in finding ways to live authentically, which always means living in light of the spirit, the personal and the unique not under the tutelage of objectification, the impersonal and the general.

So, I see the possibility of a great compatibility between stoicism and existentialism. — John

Well said. I do find Stoicism intriguing, and I see much to admire. I find their writings to be encouraging and uplifting. Something that struck me lately, is Seneca's recommendation that we choose someone who we admire (presumably someone dead, lol) and imagine them watching over our lives, and think about whether or not that someone would approve of our actions.

But, my life is untidy, I see contradictions in the world around me and in myself, and I have doubts, anxieties and fears that I hope existentialism will help me deal with. I also like a good mystery.

Some of you might appreciate this article comparing Victor Frankl's existential Logotherapy to Stoicism.