Thank you Mww. What a legend!

Agreed. Is that empathy a learned response to maintain group cohesion? I’m not saying I believe that’s the case, but biologically, is empathy a symptom of that cohesion? I might look into that

take it that the Cambridge translation by Guyer and Wood is considered the best when considering a ratio between readability and accuracy to the original. — AmadeusD

I had looked at that, but this close to Christmas I didn’t justify the spend.

I also bought a guidebook relating to it. From what I understand, grad students in America use those kinds of books to introduce the actual text and build some basic understanding…and I will certainly need all the help I can get!

I think we do that as adults too as a form of social flexibility and image generation. We sadly tend to want to be liked and fit in more than almost anything regardless of whatever narrative we paste over that. — Baden

Yes, its a strange phenomenon to witness. My mother lives in England, has an English accent (North East) but when she comes back from visiting family in Ireland she sounds Irish. Did I read somewhere its a socio-survival technique? We naturally try to conform to the crowd, strength in numbers etc.

The German word "Heimat" (the feeling of being at home) is one and the Czech word "litost" (the feeling of coming face to face with your own misery) is another. — Baden

I am familiar on a daily basis with these two feelings :lol:

In that case, it would be more about being accustomed to it (and reinforcing your position within a group) than actually anything to do with better conveying meaning. — Baden

I agree. I wonder if culturally, in some parts of UK and USA at least, the French are portrayed in such a way that using 'je ne ce quoi' has become a cultural affectation to make oneself sound however the French are culturally viewed (in this case, maybe mysterious and exciting). This would make the use of 'je ne ce quoi' and other French phrases more about portraying a certain image of oneself rather than whatever the object is you are talking about.

I'm late to the party but ordering it today! I'll be sure to check the version :)

I for one, as someone new here, would quite enjoy reading more on this thread. Is it perhaps just that the initial question needs refinement and clarification? Do you mean it might be easier to express certain things in certain languages because of how they have evolved?

There are tendencies to mix languages in sentences when trying to convey meaning eg 'It has a certain...je ne ce quoi' when we want to describe something with good qualities we can't describe, or 'And finally, the pièce de résistance!' when we want to show the crowning achievement. Do we native English speakers use these common phrases because French better conveys the meaning, or are we just accustomed to it by this point?

I tried learning some Japanese, and though I found learning to write kanji/katakana difficult, the ability to convey a meaning/emotion/image in one or two characters is quite interesting, even if I got it wrong a lot being a non-native speaker lol.

For a moment there I thought 'lol imagine just popping into existence and how that would feel' but then realised they probably wouldn't feel anything.

I wonder if the act of procreation could be considered self-centred - the continuation of your lineage - and so if they are entirely self-interested it might be in their best interest. Or it could be they are too self-interested to even considered another being. I don't know a great deal about them, but I assume they have no biological drive to procreate (though I did read some are behaviourally identical to humans, so if we say behaviour can be a reaction to biology, they may have the 'continuation of the species' built-in). If their physiology is indistinguishable from a human physiology, would their brain still have that drive?

And then, it's altogether possible p-zombies just randomly start popping into existence in a measured and sustainable volume over time in that particular part of the universe. Could be quite comical.

With no urge to reproduce and no way to think of rational reasons to do so, they would have died out very early in their evolutionary development. Is it possible p-zombies are metaphysically impossible? — RogueAI

Would this assume that the standard model of evolution is the only route to conscious existence? It is entirely possible that an entire world of p-zombies is created completely by the random chance of atom arrangement (possible, but ridiculously improbably haha). I am by no means an expert, just the word 'impossible' always piques my curiosity :)

I'm living for this intellectual battle haha

I wish my brain as amazing as some of y'alls!!

Welcome to the Forum. — Wayfarer

Thanks, glad to be here :)

energy is not intentional, whereas one would think that intentionality is at the very seat of the soul (or mind or consciousness). — Wayfarer

Could we define intention as energy behaving in a certain way? I read somewhere about an argument between matter producing consciousness, or consciousness creating matter. Kind of like the chicken and egg, what came first question. If intention is energy, like all other energy, it cannot be created or destroyed (in our current understanding). I realise this is a big, unsubstantiated jump... just trying to explore what my head is thinking haha

But that adds a very big problem to it: where does it start and where does it end? If the distinguishing criteria of something is undergoing incremental changes, we can't say where it begins and where it ends, as nothing in this world is created or destroyed, only changed — Lionino

Indeed. One could argue in this case that the 'soul' (or mind, consciousness, whatever one wishes to call it) has always and will always exist within our limited understanding of time and space - just in different forms, which brings a whole host of questions around what was before the big bang and what comes after it is all over. Someone on a spiritual path might say this means the soul always lives on. Someone of a more scientific ilk might suggest that consciousness arises as a result of electrical activity in the brain, and since energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed, some form of soul always exists, but at what point do we stop considering it a soul and just a collection of energy?

I like what you say about orange and red - when does it stop being orange and start being red? On the surface, when the frequency hits a certain point that has been pre-determined, we are told it is orange or red. But we have set that precedent of what is red and what is orange within our relatively limited visual spectrum. But regardless of what we call something, I suppose this is exactly the same problem as dealing with tiny increments of time...at what point does the frequency become red/orange? Frequency in this case would be just like time wouldn't it? In that there are infinite increments, and we can never find the instant it is one thing and not another, because the increments can always be made smaller.

Apologies if that's a bit rambling, it is a very interesting topic!

Sorry, just to follow on from my last post...

Could it be that the 'self' does exist but in a dynamic state, always changing but, for the most part, recognisable over time if you analyse in small enough increments of time

What a fascinating thread - thoroughly enjoyed reading it!

I am still very much at the beginning of my critical/philosophical thinking journey, so what I say here might seem really basic and unsubstantiated, but I am trying to engage more with people with such wonderful minds as those on this forum.

I found the hammer analogy very interesting. To my mind, changing a single atom changes the hammer to something different. The general perception of the hammer has remained the same - we look at it as a constituent of its parts - carbon, hydrogen, iron etc atoms stacked and bonded in a specific way giving it what the majority of people would perceive to resemble what we have come to call a 'hammer.' I feel that it is still a hammer with that one atom change, but not the same hammer. Our minds don't register this changed atom - we don't suddenly lose our hammer because one atom changed, then think we have a new hammer.

I find the perception part quite interesting. To my mind (in its relatively novice-like manner), we cannot perceive anything as existing. The electron cloud around every atom changes constantly, there is no way to determine an absolutely static template of the hammer because time is infinitely reducible, and the most infinitesimal portion of time will have changed the hammer. Our minds cannot process those changes to that degree, so we have a generalised idea of what a hammer is, how it looks to our eyes through the reflection of light, and we assign 'hammer' to it. But there can be no 'hammer' outside of this perception and....oh dear, now my brain is wondering whether our perception of the hammer actually does make the hammer exist.

Is this what Buddhism is talking about - that nothing exists and there is only emptiness, and realisation of emptiness brings enlightenment?

What are y'all doing to my tiny little pea brain!

Good stuff! I have read some of the usual Stoics - Aurelius, Epicurus, Seneca. A little bit of Bertrand Russell and recently some Nietzsche. There is so much out there haha

Hi Javi,
Excellent! Judging by the number of comments you have made on this site you will clearly be more learned than I am! I look forward to your insights :) do you lean to a particular type of philosophy?

Did you assume 'Durr-ham' instead of 'Duh-rum' lol

North-East UK in County Durham. Lived in Canada for a brief time when I was younger.

This would be a fun thing to do, maybe even like a Teams/Zoom meeting? OP - I am also just starting the philosophy journey and don't have many people to talk to!