• The Happiness of All Mankind
    You, on the other hand, accept the criticisms joyfully, embracing its horrors. — Hanover

    I think that the horrors of Marxism naturally followed from their doctrine.

    Same for Nazism. There was absolutely nothing unexpected to what happened. There was no surprise whatsoever. Hitler had spelled it out very clearly in Mein Kampf what he would do.

    Stalin wanted power. He wanted maximum and absolute power. Can we deny that he successfully achieved his goal? You can only be disappointed in Stalin if he had not achieved his goal, but he clearly did. In terms of his own ambitions, Stalin was a runaway success.
  • The Happiness of All Mankind
    As your eyes met his in deep admiration, he'd have murdered you too. — Hanover

    A good number of people successfully managed to get out of the Soviet Union before it was too late.

    Same for Nazi Germany.

    SE Asia -- where I am now -- were colonies back then. Hence, to avoid like the plague. Same for colonial Africa.

    However, there were quite a few independent countries in South America that would take pretty much anybody in. Paraguay apparently still does.

    I would have admired Stalin's and Lavrentiy Beria's exploits from there. Stalin was originally a bank robber. That is why he became so good at his new mafia job.

    I would probably have tried to subscribe to the newsletter of the People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD) in order to follow up on the eradication of the multitude of "class enemies".

    These guys were fantastic at propaganda. Probably even better than now. They were greatest mafia gang in the history of mankind.
  • Myth-Busting Marx - Fromm on Marx and Critique of the Gotha Programme
    I agree with everything here pretty much except the view that there is a "ruling mafia". I do not believe most of what happens in the political sphere is directed by any upper echelon of society. — I like sushi

    I believe that there is always someone who is going to benefit from what they do, because otherwise, they wouldn't do it. Seriously, otherwise they would not lift a finger.

    They are in the business of making money from what they have, i.e. political power.

    Everybody is incessantly monetizing whatever they can make money from. So, why wouldn't they?

    So, whatever they say or do, I safely assume that there is always someone who will cash in handsomely and somehow do fifty-fifty with them. It is usually not even particularly hard to figure out on whom they are busy showering political profits.

    The ruling oligarchy is a mafia. Always have been. Always will be.

    For example, why did Britain start a war with the Ottoman empire in 1914? Certainly not because they liked their Russian so-called "allies" so much. That was just a convenient excuse. They wanted war with the Ottomans because someone was going to benefit handsomely from that conflict. The human cannon fodder from the colonies and the dominions certainly did not die for nothing in Gallipoli.
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    Not so. "Survival instinct" is autonomic like (e.g. respiration) and therefore does need to be extrinsically "stimulated". — 180 Proof

    There are quite a few psychiatrists who write in their posts that in their experience spirituality truly assists with mental issues such as depression and anxiety, which I both consider to be a dangerous impairment to the person's will to survive.

    I believe that survival instinct can find itself damaged but can also be repaired.

    This may be true of modern academic philosophy (e.g. Anglo-American analytical philosophy, Viennese logical positivism, Parisian post/structuralism, etc) but not true of contemporary variants on and applications of way of life philosophies (some of which I've already mentioned) such as (e.g.) rational emotive hehavioral therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, existential therapy, logotherapy, clinical philosophy, etc. — 180 Proof

    Okay.

    At this point, I haven't run into publications by psychiatrists who have used philosophy as a tool to combat mental issues. They mostly mention spirituality as a possibility.

    The simplest solution is probably to reconnect to what the patient already has experience with, most likely, his religion.

    We are talking about difficult cases here.

    It is about people who are already deep inside the rabbit hole. They are getting professional help but it seems to be a real struggle. Psychiatrists may hesitate to try to medicate the problem away because that may simply medicate the person away.
  • Myth-Busting Marx - Fromm on Marx and Critique of the Gotha Programme
    I have had the feeling that we are living through a very significant revolution right now (on the scale of the creation of civilization) but like many a blind sage I am probably completely wrong because the more I come to learn about everything the less certain I am about anything. Undoubtedly every person in every age felt some kind of severe revolutionary movement on the immediate horizon. — I like sushi

    I am a digital nomad slash nomad capitalist.

    A country is to me just an alternative jurisdiction competing with 200+ other ones. I have no stake in any particular one. I do not vote in any particular one. I just go where I am treated best.

    So, if one particular country decides to start a severe revolutionary movement, I do not see how it would affect me personally. I do not understand how people can identify so much with one particular ruling mafia, i.e. one country's jurisdiction.

    How do they even benefit from that?

    I consider the following statement to be the most manipulative bullshit ever pronounced on the face of this earth:

    “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country. John F. Kennedy”

    Seriously? WTF!?

    Some people even volunteer to die in foreign lands for their ruling mafia. I cannot imagine any decision more stupid than that. The ruling mafia does not give a flying fart about you. Never have. Never will. So, why would you?
  • Myth-Busting Marx - Fromm on Marx and Critique of the Gotha Programme
    In terms of naivety I am fairly sure Popper would frame your position as naive due to a clinging to historicism. — I like sushi

    I am not necessarily a historicist, even though I certainly acknowledge the importance of history.

    I have a very simplistic view on politics. At the top, you have the ruling mafia. At the bottom, you have the populace. I cannot imagine a society without either. I acknowledge the existence of both but I do not trust either.

    No reading suggestions for me?
    I have read the entire Incerto series by Nassim Taleb. In the meanwhile, the man has become quite controversial.

    But then again, I enjoyed reading "Black Swan. Impact of the highly improbable.", "Antifragile. Things that benefit from disorder.", "Fooled by randomness", and "Skin in the game".

    Nassim Taleb is good at debunking.

    Still, Taleb should stay away from Twitter. His flame wars are embarrassing.

    I like reading books that cynically debunk mainstream views. I would never read a book that advocates for direct liberal democracy. I would only read a book that completely and utterly debunks it.

    Democracy is rule by the mob. I will never endorse it.
  • Myth-Busting Marx - Fromm on Marx and Critique of the Gotha Programme
    Have you read Karl Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies"? I am in the process of reading this currently and it may serve you well to have a browse of it. — I like sushi

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies

    Popper argues that Plato's political philosophy has dangerous tendencies towards totalitarianism, contrary to the benign idyll portrayed by most interpreters.

    The ruling mafia wants more power. Welcome to the real world.

    Popper criticizes Marx at length for his historicism, which he believes led him to overstate his case, and rejects his radical and revolutionary outlook.

    The feudal lords are a good example of how society really works. In comparison, the bourgeoisie is just a silly joke. Where are the swords of the bourgeoisie to justify any political power?

    Popper advocates for direct liberal democracy as the only form of government that allows institutional improvements without violence and bloodshed.

    How naive!

    Plato's ideal state was not a progressive Utopian vision of the future, but rather a historical or even pre-historical one that attempted to reconstruct ancient tribal aristocracies to avoid class war. The ruling class in Plato's best state has an unchallengeable superiority and education. Breeding and training of the ruling class was necessary for ensuring stability, and Plato demanded the same principles be applied as in breeding dogs, horses, or birds.

    Plato also sounds naive. Stalin was a great mafioso because he was originally a petty criminal. Stalin profoundly understood the tentacles of power.

    Popper also discusses Plato's theory of degeneration in the state, where degeneration is a natural evolutionary law that causes decay in all generated things. Plato suggests that knowledge of breeding and the Platonic Number can prevent racial degeneration, but lacking a purely rational method, it will eventually occur. The basis of Plato's historicist sociology is racial degeneration, which "explains the origin of disunion in the ruling class, and with it, the origin of all historical development".

    The children of mafioso are not necessarily successful mafioso. That is indeed why the ruling mafia does not necessarily perpetuate itself along inherited blood lines.

    He acknowledges, however, that "too much state control in educational matters is a fatal danger to freedom, since it must lead to indoctrination"

    Giving the state, i.e. the ruling mafia, control over education is indeed a recipe for disaster.

    Popper suggests that Plato considered only a few individuals, including himself and some of his friends, as true philosophers eligible for the post of philosopher-king.

    The idea that philosophers would be effective rulers, is laughable. Even petty criminals are more effective mafioso. A ruler may have to elbow his way to the top. You don't get there by using philosophy. You get there by gunning down your competitors.

    According to Popper, the paradox of freedom was "used first, and with success, by Plato", but was "never grasped" by Marx, who held the "naïve view that, in a classless society, state power would lose its function and 'wither away'"

    So, Stalin would elbow his way all the way to the top just to give up his power when he got there? How naive. Popper is right about Marx and the gullibility of his views.
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    Why? They should be mad as hell. Instead of escaping into 'spiritual' whatnot, they should rise up and fix the bastards that put into the bottom of a bad society. — Vera Mont

    Is this meant to be practical advice?

    Bullshit. The pastor, imam or rabbi may offer some psychological support, family relations guidance, community adjustment advice, but they can't do squat about you economic or legal woes. — Vera Mont
    They can keep you afloat while you evaluate your options. Sometimes it is indeed preferable to start all over again elsewhere.

    As a digital nomad and nomad capitalist, I do not hesitate to engage in extensive jurisdiction shopping. That is why a valid passport is an important tool. Two or more passports are even better. It allows you to go where you are treated best.

    People tend to be completely unprepared for, and dangerously over-exposed to, an attack from the matrix. That is why a matrix attack is often so damaging. The solution begins by making the inventory of any undue trust in the system and drastically reduce it. If these people did not trust the matrix at all, it would not be able to cause so much damage.

    Unfortunately, most people only learn that when it is too late already.

    I learned it from my father, who instilled me with a deep distrust for the "trusted" institutions, none of which can be trusted in any shape or fashion.

    I have summarized this into my "theory of deception". It is the collective trust itself in the deceptive statement (a=b) that automatically fuels the growth in the total amount of deception (b-a)².

    For example, it is exactly because so many people believe that their money is still in the bank that none of it is still there. It is exactly because so many people believe that the television newsreader is telling the truth, that everything he says is a lie. And so on. Most mainstream beliefs are highly deceptive, exactly because they are mainstream.
  • The Happiness of All Mankind
    I think Stalin, for example, failed because he only pursued happiness. — Hanover

    I think that Stalin spectacularly succeeded because he had as much power or even more so than the imperial feudal lords that he replaced. The goal of the ruling mafia is more power. Stalin was one of the greatest mafioso in the history of mankind. I truly admire him.

    That and he killed 40 million people. — Hanover

    That is indeed a potential failure. The goal is to subdue. The goal is not to kill, because that effectively removes power over the individual who has been eliminated. The question is if he could have gained all his power without causing that much collateral damage? Maybe not.
  • The Happiness of All Mankind
    Was the failure of communism mainly due to pursuing happiness not as a methodology or process; but, as the final goal of the system itself? — Shawn

    The goal of the system is not the pursuit of happiness.

    Karl Marx correctly pointed out that the ruling mafia has the political power and is therefore supposed to own and control all the means of production.

    That is why the erstwhile feudal lords owned pretty much all the land.

    The fact that the bourgeoisie owned the means of production -- the businesses and factories -- without also having the political power, was and still is highly unstable.

    Societal stability required a return of the feudal lords, who have both the political power as well as complete communist power and control over the economy.

    I agree with Marx' analysis.

    You will own nothing.
    The ruling mafia will own everything.

    The golden rule is that the man with the sword owns all the gold and makes the rules.

    The ruling mafia may appear to tolerate private ownership. That is actually an illusion.

    With one press of the button, your house gets foreclosed, your car gets impounded, your bank accounts are frozen, your salary gets arraigned, and the next morning you get kicked out of your house, unemployed, homeless, and begging in the streets for mercy.

    If you don't have the political power to protect what you own, then you effectively own nothing at all. Welcome to the real world.
  • Myth-Busting Marx - Fromm on Marx and Critique of the Gotha Programme
    Only you can shake yourself free of dogma sadly. If you cannot admit he was wrong about anything then that should tell you something at least. — I like sushi

    I personally think that Marx misunderstood who exactly was going to benefit from the revolution. He argued that the proletariat would. Of course, the proletariat wouldn't. It was the new ruling mafia that would.

    His analysis still made quite a bit of sense.

    The new middle-class factory owners were not a realistic replacement for the erstwhile feudal lords. They did not have the political power. Therefore, they didn't stand a chance. The ruling mafia were simply going to stomp them into oblivion, and they did.

    You cannot just separate political power from ownership of the means of production.

    I believe that there is an inevitable trend in which the ruling oligarchs will own all the excess wealth and control all the means of production.

    You will own nothing.
    They will own everything.

    That is the only truly stable situation.

    Therefore, you could as well cut the process short, let the ruling mafia take over all the businesses, and let them have complete communist power and control.

    Modern capitalism amounts to endlessly beating around the bush, with feeble attempts to delay and deny the inevitable. The feudal lords will come back. They will own and control everything, because that is simply human nature.
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    No, it means you don't need the deep mental anguish in the first place; you're imposing it on yourself for no good reason. — Vera Mont

    People at the bottom of society or other vulnerable individuals do not always choose to suffer from deep mental anguish. Their social or financial circumstances could impose this through no fault of their own.

    I do not just assume that people in trouble have only themselves to blame. Even good, decent, honest, and upright individuals can become unemployed and homeless without therefore being at fault themselves.

    They may need help from others as well as the inner strength to keep striving for improvement in their situation.

    In my opinion, synagogues, churches, and mosques are well-positioned to offer material and spiritual assistance. In my opinion, someone in serious trouble needs both.

    A society can only survive through history if it can keep its very bottom alive and afloat. Otherwise, the whole thing will just keep eroding, with every new bottom disappearing, until nothing will be left.
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    You must understand, if you find the Pessimist framework I lay out as "Wrong", it doesn't matter, because you are ALREADY in the (de facto) optimist framework of the situatedness of the society your were PROCREATED into and are now following, and moving about in. The Pessimist is just saying that we should question THIS framework- the one we are de facto buying into, and to STOP the perpetuation of this framework

    In absence of spirituality, generalized pessimism is a very valid rational answer. It is now even the norm in the most atheist country on earth, China.

    https://asiatimes.com/2023/07/youths-desperate-four-no-attitude-worries-china/

    young people in substantial numbers have adopted an attitude that’s termed the “four nos”: no interest in dating, getting married, buying a home or having a child.

    The four nos supplement the widespread life strategy of "lying flat":

    Tang ping (Chinese: 躺平; lit. 'lying flat') means choosing to "lie down flat and get over the beatings" via a low-desire, more indifferent attitude towards life.

    Pessimism keeps growing in China:

    Forget about lying flat. A new expression is in vogue among young Chinese netizens: “let it rot” 摆烂.

    What you are proposing, is exactly what they are now doing in China.
  • Myth-Busting Marx - Fromm on Marx and Critique of the Gotha Programme
    It did not happen. If you cannot admit this simple truth then there is nothing to discuss. — I like sushi

    You are probably too impatient. A century or two is nothing in the history of mankind.

    The ruling oligarchy has always owned and controlled the means of production. The feudal lords owned pretty much all the land.

    While the middle class owns quite a few of the businesses, it does not have the political power to protect their ownership from the ruling mafia.

    How is that supposed to keep flying?

    That system is clearly unstable.

    The ruling mafia systematically confiscates excess wealth and excess income from those who do not have the political power to keep them at bay.

    It is pretty much a law of nature that the ruling mafia will come for what you have. It is an ongoing process. It is just a question of time before they will catch up with you.

    Therefore, I agree with Marx. The middle class is just a temporary anomaly.
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    God coulda this, god coulda that... No, he bloody couldn't, because God doesn't exist! — Vera Mont

    This merely means that you cannot make use of spirituality to address deep mental anguish.

    If you ever happen to need it, it will not be available to you.

    If a society as a whole could survive without spirituality, the history books would definitely mention it.

    They don't.

    Hence, that is a hell of a gamble.

    On the other hand, people are certainly free to think like that. Every misbehavior tends to be its own punishment. That is why there is no compulsion in religion.
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    What do you mean by "philosophy"and "spirituality" – what makes them fundamentally different? — 180 Proof

    https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/members/sigs/spirituality-spsig/what-is-spirituality-maya-spencer-x.pdf

    What is spirituality? A personal exploration
    Dr Maya Spencer
    Royal College of Psychiatrists

    Spirituality involves the recognition of a feeling or sense or belief that there is something greater than myself, something more to being human than sensory experience, and that the greater whole of which we are part is cosmic or divine in nature.

    Religion formalises certain aspects of spiritual awareness into a coherent belief system that can be taken on trust, even if the person has no direct experience of the Divine.

    Usually religion is manifest as a collective through church, mosque, synagogue or temple, and is involved with community as much as with individuals. This provides a real framework through which the ‘greater than me’ can start to be experienced.

    What are the implications for mental healthcare? Patients consumed by anxiety or dulled by depression have little scope to cultivate a spiritual path when they are under the sway of distorted thoughts endlessly being repeated over and over in their minds. These thoughts are mistaken for facts.

    Unlike philosophy, spirituality is not related to rational inquiry. Spirituality is a non-rational tool to stimulate survival instinct by connecting to something that is greater than ourselves and which is divine in nature. Philosophy is not meant to do that and therefore cannot replace that. Unlike spirituality, philosophy is not meant to assist with mental healthcare.
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    Philosophically, it is possible. — L'éléphant

    Philosophy cannot replace spirituality.

    In fact, philosophy causes a lot of damage whenever it tries.

    What the poor and other people in desperate situations need most of all is faith and hope. As long as they have faith that there is still hope, they will keep going. If you manage to take that away from them, you are effectively destroying them.

    Philosophy was not meant to give hope to the hopeless struggling at the bottom of society. It does not do that because it cannot do that.

    When philosophers try to overstep the boundaries of the tool of rationality and try to replace spirituality by philosophy, then they become a threat to the very survival of society and especially to the survival of its poorest and most vulnerable individuals.
  • Myth-Busting Marx - Fromm on Marx and Critique of the Gotha Programme
    We see in societies that don't have a rich history of welfare a relatively sharp decline of the middle class. The UK sees a cost of living crisis. The US has had a shrinking middle-class for over 50 years now. And most EU countries have shrinking middle-classes as well, following years of neoliberal policies. So, to be expected. Obviously, redistributive policies and progressive taxation can manage some of these consequences but they didn't exist during Marx' time, which is why he campaigned for it to address some of the inequality. — Benkei

    Redistribution is never from the (truly) rich to the poor. The ruling mafia will never use its power to redistribute away from itself. That is just a political fairy tale.

    Redistribution always takes place from the middle class to the poor. Redistribution does not help the middle class at all. On the contrary, it burdens the middle class to no end. It impoverishes the middle class. Progressive taxation only targets the middle class. It will never, ever affect the ruling oligarchy itself.

    If you have wealth but no political power -- no matter how much wealth -- then you are just middle class, and then you are one step away from becoming poor. You are just waiting for the moment at which the ruling oligarchy singles you out and mercilessly plunders your possessions, some of which they will give to the poor, but most of which they will use to enrich themselves.

    Power always translates into money. Lack of power always translates into losing your money.
  • Myth-Busting Marx - Fromm on Marx and Critique of the Gotha Programme
    What he said would happen did not happen. — I like sushi

    It generally does happen.

    Two social classes always exist.

    The ruling mafia, by virtue of its power, will always top the income ladder. It does not matter how you organize society because there will always be a ruling class, and political power will always translate into money.

    There will also always be a bottom to society, if only for geometrical reasons. It will also always accumulate lots of people.

    Concerning the size of any class in the middle, hard times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men, weak men make hard times.

    Women go in tandem. Replace "good men" by "virtuous women", and "weak men" by "promiscuous women" ("hoeflation").

    Furthermore, for political reasons, it is necessary that the ruling elite plunders the middle class and shares (some of) the loot with the bottom class.

    Of course, the ruling oligarchy will never plunder themselves for that purpose. Hence, "let's tax the rich" is an utmost laughable slogan, but the populace always seems stupid enough to believe it.

    The middle class is busy becoming poor at the moment. That is the point in the cycle that we are currently at.
  • Myth-Busting Marx - Fromm on Marx and Critique of the Gotha Programme
    He said the middle class would get sucked down into poverty. They didn't. That fact is not up for debate. — I like sushi

    Patience is key here. In my opinion, the current middle class will indeed get sucked down into poverty. Just give it a bit more time.
  • Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
    A utopian society, or more generally, a utopian universe is not possible.

    The answer to this question is spiritual, however, and not rational. Any attempt at giving a rational answer will overstep the boundaries of the tool of rationality and therefore fail.

    If you cannot accept a spiritual answer, you will instead have to keep rebelling against the absurd and eventually fail.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

    Various possible responses to deal with absurdism and its impact have been suggested. The three responses discussed in the traditional absurdist literature are suicide, religious belief in a higher purpose, and rebellion against the absurd.

    You can achieve peace, first of all, by rejecting every rational answer to this question. Next, you can pick a spiritual answer which adequately appeases your need to know; which you never truly will anyway.
  • A (simple) definition for philosophy
    Every few years, someone comes along who thinks they have overturned everything that went before. Its part of the tradition. It never works. — Ludwig V

    Quite a bit of philosophy from antiquity is still perfectly valid. I don't believe that it will ever be overturned.

    But then again, the environment has changed since antiquity. People's cognitive reactions will reflect that. Philosophy will therefore reflect that. The effects of changes in the environment will inevitably make their way into philosophy. Of course, it still won't overturn everything that went before.

    The better starting point is not necessarily the classics.

    For example, Karl Popper's seminal text "Science as falsification", is largely a reflection on the conversations with his friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, and what was wrong with these theories. The result is nothing less than the dominant modern take on the epistemology of science.

    I don't know if Popper overturned everything that went before. Was there even anything that went before, so to speak of?
  • A (simple) definition for philosophy
    Me if I abused philosophical literature, searched for the first thing that somewhat agreed with my sophomoric redefinition, didn't read the rest, and decided to quote it even though the person being quoted would disagree with me. — Lionino

    Here we go again.

    Have you found a job already? Or are you going to keep living off your mother's welfare benefits?

    Of course, you can't do either of them at all. — Lionino

    Is there anything that you can do, that someone else is willing to pay for?

    Philosophy and the philosophy of mathematics are not objective meritocracies. That is a massive drawback. It fails to expose people -- whose only contribution is to shit talk other people -- for what they truly are.

    By the way, I have heard that Starbucks is hiring in your area.
  • A (simple) definition for philosophy
    Accountancy companies and engineering firms might have philosophies concerning how they do business but that doesn’t necessarily mean they have wider application outside their spheres. — Wayfarer

    Aristotle wrote interesting things which were essentially about recursive algorithms. If an algorithm f(n) has two parts:

    func f(n)
{
           part1(n);
           part2(n);
}

    If part2(n) is recursive, i.e. it contains a reference to f(n-1), and if the algorithm eventually halts, then part1(n) necessarily contains a termination clause:

    if n=n0 then return f0;

    Aristotle used this argument two times in his publications. One time in "Posterior Analytics" to argue why foundationalism is inevitable and another time in "Metaphysics" when arguing why he believes there must be an unmoved mover, i.e. a universal initial cause.

    The next time after Aristotle that someone successfully used a partial function to prove anything, was when Alan Turing used it in 1936 for the formalization of his halting problem. (Turing didn't call the problem as such but it is under that name that it started circulating).

    Anybody in between? Not so much, I guess.

    I don't know if Aristotle has written anything about accounting or engineering, but he certainly has about recursive algorithms.

    And by the philosophical canon I don’t just mean ancient philosophy, there are many interesting current philosophers. — Wayfarer

    Possibly.

    However, it is unfortunately not clear to me which one of them would be remarkable.

    For example, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a long-winding text that rarely commits to anything actionable, but when it very occasionally does, it turns out to be wrong.

    For example, according to Kant, the natural numbers and arithmetic would not be an axiomatic theory. Kant argued that numbers would originate in intuition and not be analytic a priori. Later on, Peano and Dedekind published a perfectly viable axiomatic take on arithmetic and the natural numbers. Frege also pointed out that Kant was fundamentally misguided about the natural numbers and arithmetic.

    Writing a word salad is easy. Successfully arguing a point by using partial functions, is hard. Unlike what many philosophers think, I consider Aristotle and Kant to be in different leagues. Aristotle did something difficult to do. Kant did not.
  • A (simple) definition for philosophy
    The other point I would definitely include is ‘some reference to the canonical texts of the philosophical tradition’. This thread, for instance, contains none. — Wayfarer

    There are entire areas in philosophy that are dominant elsewhere but will never get mentioned in a philosophy department.

    For example:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

    Unix philosophy

    The Unix philosophy, originated by Ken Thompson, is a set of cultural norms and philosophical approaches to minimalist, modular software development. It is based on the experience of leading developers of the Unix operating system.

    There is nothing wrong with 2500-year-old texts.

    However, there is a lot more philosophy than that. Philosophy did not stop with Aristotle.

    Depending on your background, you will be more influenced by different texts, simply because in your own environment, they are mentioned more often.

    Furthermore, philosophy often emerges out of the confrontation with existing practice. New questions will lead to new philosophical considerations.

    We simply do not live in antiquity anymore. Some of the ancient findings are still relevant. A lot of it, is not.

    It is naive to believe that by merely studying the old masters, you will be able to make a relevant contribution to the world of philosophy as it exists today. Instead, you will find yourself mostly divorced from the contemporary discourse.
  • A (simple) definition for philosophy
    The second sounds a little bitter. — jgill

    Well, not really. I (semi-)retired in 2017 from software engineering. Until then, I never had much time for my hobbies. Now I finally do.
  • A (simple) definition for philosophy
    To make your point would require some sort of poll of mathematicians asking "Are the Foundations of Mathematics important to you as you pursue your explorations into your specialties?" I'm betting most of my colleagues — jgill

    Mathematics does not have direct practical applications, mostly by design so. That is often a good thing, but it also means that the academic consensus has much more weight than it would have, if there were practical applications.

    This reminds me of the notorious debate between Andrew Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds:

    LINUX is obsolete (Jan 29, 1992)

    Torvalds: You use this [being a professor] as an excuse for the limitations of minix? ... your job is being a professor and researcher: That's one hell of a good excuse for some of the brain-damages of minix.

    Tanenbaum: Writing a new OS only for the 386 in 1991 gets you your second 'F' for this term. But if you do real well on the final exam, you can still pass the course.

    In this realm, i.e. operating system research, it is the billions of users of the Android mobile phones (built on top of the Linux kernel) who give an 'F' to Andrew Tanenbaum and an 'A' to Linus Torvalds.

    Tanenbaum's colleagues obviously thought the same as Tanenbaum, and all of them were completely and dead wrong.

    Philosophy and mathematics are certainly interesting hobbies. Unfortunately, unlike in operating system research, there does not exist an objective meritocracy.

    There's just the mutually back-patting consensus, or else meaningless grades on a collection of otherwise irrelevant tests and exams, or even the eternally back-patting citation carousel. That is why I have personally never treated and will never treat philosophy or mathematics as more than just hobbies.
  • A Review and Critical Response to the Shortcomings of Popular Secularist Philosophies
    How is it compelling based on the facts brought about by academia that religion was the slow evolution of ideas .,. — schopenhauer1
    The actual or detailed particulars of spirituality do not matter in this context.

    The only question is: Does his capacity to spirituality help the sufferer of great pains to overcome them? Does it give hope where there would otherwise not be any? In other words, does his capacity to spirituality reinforce the person's survival instinct? Does it contribute to his survival?

    Even soldiers know about this. They may find themselves outnumbered ten to one on the battlefield. At first glance the situation may look hopeless. However, if the soldiers are capable of spirituality, instead of giving up, they may double down and possibly even save the day. On the other hand, a soldier who lacks the capacity for spirituality may in critical moments lack the courage to do what it takes.

    Just like rationality is a tool that contributes in its own way to survival, spirituality is another tool which contributes in another way. Furthermore, just like I have no spiritual considerations to make about rationality, I have no rational considerations to make about spirituality. I just let each tool do its job.

    In my opinion, people who seek to make rational considerations about spirituality ("academia") are mostly wasting their time. If your only tool is a hammer, the whole world will inevitably start looking like a nail.

    Seriously, instead of reading books about swimming in order to get some useless degree in "swimmology", just jump into the swimming pool and start swimming instead. That is a much more effective step in the direction of a future gold medal at the Olympics.
  • A (simple) definition for philosophy
    I suppose it is, especially among foundations mathematicians. But I would not say it remains a crisis within the broader scope of the profession. Mostly a curiosity. — jgill

    The discipline of mathematical logic grew out of the foundational crisis:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics

    This led, near the end of the 19th century, to a series of paradoxical mathematical results that challenged the general confidence in reliability and truth of mathematical results. This has been called the foundational crisis of mathematics.

    The resolution of this crisis involved the rise of a new mathematical discipline called mathematical logic that includes set theory, model theory, proof theory, computability and computational complexity theory, and more recently, several parts of computer science.

    Not sure if mathematical logic is just a curiosity.
  • A Review and Critical Response to the Shortcomings of Popular Secularist Philosophies
    You seem to have no justification for your last claim. Religion fails as well. I am not saying religion provides THE meaning. The humanist can claim ... — schopenhauer1

    In very difficult circumstances, there is no rational justification for the choice to keep carrying on, instead of throwing in the towel on life itself.

    Either you have a spiritual justification for that, or else you don't have one at all.

    If religion also fails at that point, then your very last line of defense will also have been overrun. The humanist may not even have such last line of defense.

    If what you need, is hope, because you feel desperate and hopeless, then only faith itself, the deep inner conviction that there is always hope, can give you the hope that you need.

    What will save you, is not rationality.

    On the contrary, that line of defense will be gone already. At that point, salvation can only come from a carefully cultivated kind of irrationality, which is spirituality.

    None of the above can be rationally justified, and very much by design so.
  • A Review and Critical Response to the Shortcomings of Popular Secularist Philosophies
    Clearly, my answer is to embrace philosophical pessimism as a clear-viewed way of understanding life. Philosophical pessimism is the antidote, not the symptom. — schopenhauer1

    Rationality is a tool. Spirituality is another tool. If your only tool is a hammer, then the whole world will start looking like a nail. Rationality is not the tool for discovering the meaning of life. On the contrary, it can only lead to absurdism:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

    Absurdism is the philosophical theory that the universe is irrational and meaningless. Absurdism claims that existence as a whole is absurd. On the practical level, the conflict underlying the absurd is characterized by the individual's struggle to find meaning in a meaningless world. Some arguments in favor of absurdism focus on the human insignificance in the universe, on the role of death, or on the implausibility or irrationality of positing an ultimate purpose. It is traditionally identified as the confrontation of rational man with an irrational world or as the attempt to grasp something based on reasons even though it is beyond the limits of rationality. An important aspect of absurdism is that the absurd is not limited to particular situations but encompasses life as a whole.

    The three responses discussed in the traditional absurdist literature are suicide, religious belief in a higher purpose, and rebellion against the absurd.

    The struggle against the absurd is the fight of the rational man who cannot accept that rationality is not the tool suitable for dealing with the existential question. Rationality won't explain why we are here. Rationality won't tell us why life is worth living.

    Philosophical pessimism is just another name for rebelling and failing to overcome the absurd. It is in fact a victory for the absurd. The only way to find peace, while staying alive, even through moments of despair, is to fully allow spirituality to deal with the existential question.
  • A Review and Critical Response to the Shortcomings of Popular Secularist Philosophies
    Because of the vagaries of life, people may end up in need of faith and hope. The ability to keep going will then have to come from a spiritual source. What mere rationality can bring to the table, will at that point be exhausted already. In those circumstances, people who believe in religion, will be at an advantage. They will be able to find motivation beyond what seems rationally possible.
  • Books, what for, exactly?
    Thanks for the information, but it is a bit out of my limited technological depth. — BC

    I am probably not the right person for electronic freedom outreach or advocacy.

    The undisputed ideological admiral ship of the free software world for end-user outreach is the Free Software Foundation:

    https://www.fsf.org

    The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom.

    Free software means that the users have the freedom to run, edit, contribute to, and share the software. Thus, free software is a matter of liberty, not price. We have been defending the rights of all software users for the past 35 years. Help sustain us for many more; become an associate member today.

    Another important ideological powerhouse is the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

    https://www.eff.org

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world.

    The very first thing to do, for both non-technical and technical users, is to develop a keen awareness of the problem. Hence, ideological training of the end user is an absolute necessity.

    Software can put a lot of power in the wrong hands.

    We want to prevent the oligarchy from secretly carrying out the ultimate land grab. That is why we refuse to install or use their software on our own devices.
  • Books, what for, exactly?
    Any digital book on your device could be withdrawn by the distributor, if need arises (like a copyright dispute). — BC

    You can counter this practice by rejecting the use of proprietary software and by insisting on reproducible-build free and open-source software only.

    On a desktop device, this can routinely be achieved by using a suitable Linux distribution, such as Debian Linux. Installing additional software should be done from its standard repositories only.

    Alternative sources of software are acceptable only if you pertinently know that the software will still respect your user rights under the General Public License (GPL or compatible).

    On the desktop, the copyright barons have effectively lost the war. It is still up to the user, however, to prevent them from reinstating their reign of tyranny by resolutely rejecting their software.
  • Any objections to Peter Singer's article on the “child in the pond”?
    But I think that "charity levy" is self-contradictory. A levy for charitable purposes is possible, but the justification for it would be justice, not charity. — Ludwig V

    Zakaat is in principle not enforced by government (even though in some countries it loosely is) but by religious self-discipline. If you don't want to do it, then you obviously don't. However, it is inculcated from a young age that it is a moral obligation, surrounded by quite a bit of social pressure.
  • A (simple) definition for philosophy
    In the meanwhile, it is funny moderators will leave such a post with clownish vitriol and no substance up but erase my post recommending a clearly insane person to seek medication. — Lionino

    This post is not about you. It is about Godel numbering being indicative of philosophical textual content.

    I haven't been able to find a converter of English to first-order logic, but now I have run into something that may reach halfway: grammar parse trees.

    https://github.com/opencog/link-grammar

    The CMU Link Grammar natural language parser

    The Link Grammar Parser exhibits the linguistic (natural language) structure of English, Thai, Russian, Arabic, Persian and limited subsets of a half-dozen other languages. This structure is a graph of typed links (edges) between the words in a sentence.

    There is still some distance to cover between this output and first-order logic/arithmetic.

    I'm in the gym now but I'll look into compiling the tool later on. There's an entire page on its underlying theory on Wikipedia:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_grammar
  • A (simple) definition for philosophy
    you frequently accuse me of being unemployed with zero evidence — Lionino

    Someone who never does anything else besides criticizing others, will inevitably have serious problems hanging on to a job.

    It's the same situation as with a woman who sleeps around and keeps racking up a growing body count. You just know that she cannot hang on to a husband or even a boyfriend for particularly long. You just know that she is statistically always single.

    I assume that you are statistically always unemployed. If you are not right now, then you will soon be.
  • Is self-blame a good thing? Is it the same as accountability? Or is blame just a pointless concept.
    blaming yourself actually leads to personal growth by accepting responsibility for your actions — Nimish

    Yes, agreed.

    It may often be necessary to analyze the situation again, until you can finally blame yourself instead of the environment or other people.

    It is by systematically accepting the blame for others that you rise to the top, and it is by always blaming others that you sink to the bottom.

    This has relatively little to do with religion. It has much more to do with leadership, and with where you belong in the hierarchy.
  • A (simple) definition for philosophy
    He uses computability of 'dog' with deep learning as an example. — Lionino

    Yes. It points to the existing practice of using specialized engines for object recognition. Music recognition, for example, is carried out with other specialized engines.

    Discrimination and classification software is a collection of specialized engines that sport a scripting interface. Computational philosophy most likely needs its own specialized engine.

    A suitable engine for computational philosophy does not seem to exist at this point.

    me poking holes in your nonsensical slop — Lionino

    Maximum precision is a requirement when writing source code. My own source code runs like a charm.

    As Linus Torvalds famously quipped, "Talk is cheap. Show me the code."

    I don't know about your source code but I doubt that you actually have anything to show for.

    When explaining source code, you'd better leave out technical details as much as possible. Source code looks impenetrable to the non-technical person. Hence, less is more.

    What I say now, is the result of years of experience of working in a technological environment. You cannot and should not annoy stakeholders with technical details.

    Concerning your approach to life, you cannot successfully write functioning source code or do anything of value actually, merely by criticizing other people. As I have asked you previously already, who exactly would want you on their team?

    even though by your own admission you are jobless in Southeast Asia — Lionino

    If you are really good at writing source code, sooner or later, you won't have to anymore. Successful careers in technology are actually quite short. Next, you just switch to your hobbies instead.

    Seriously, do you know of any other ultra high net-worth individual who is looking for a job? I don't look for jobs. Instead, I buy the company if I am interested in it.
  • A (simple) definition for philosophy
    Changing the definition of common words is not metaphilosophy. — Lionino

    There is no definition for the term philosophy. There is merely a collection of partially failed attempts. My own definition may be suitable for computational philosophy.

    And stop crying. — Lionino

    I am several orders better than you at insulting. I just don't do it. I'd rather explore new ideas instead of seeking conflict.
Home » Tarskian